I share your view of FXML and CSS. I will not shed a single tear if the support for them is dropped tomorrow. My main problem with CSS is that it lacks any sort of static "type" checking.
Tomas On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:36 AM, cogmission (David Ray) < cognitionmiss...@gmail.com> wrote: > The argument against emulated L&Fs hinges on one point: That they will > "always" be one step behind. > > This (Greg Brown et al.) is a fallacy! > > The reason being is that companies like Apple and Google count on > "affinity", acculturation, and familiarization with a given method of > presentation in order to increase patronage! > > It is *not* like these companies change their L&Fs with every new release. > You are confusing language/application features with presentation formats - > which *do not* change at the same rate. Apple has changed its iOS widget > set twice in the last ~10 years! (while features do in fact change) ...and > let's not talk about the speed of Android feature uptake; let alone actual > GUI widget-set changes? > > Yes, Oracle can indeed keep up with L&F changes - *easily*; and they do not > have to worry about "features" so much because much of that is passed to > implementation developers. > > Another point. > > HTML 5 usage idioms suck. (Sorry, I feel strongly about this). The whole > idea of spreading L&F configuration across 2 or 3 different formats is > ill-conceived and painfully over-verbose! (Yes I'm talking about FXML, > BXML; CSS etc...) The fact that it allows designers to function > autonomously is also a fallacy. I have never seen this play out in actual > practice - as time-to-market doesn't allow the creation of "perfect code" > (in terms of separation of concerns) - because developers cost too much > money; and while companies want expressively rich UIs - they are > concordantly not willing to pay for it. (unfortunately - I have seen this > over and over and over again). > > Back to the point... > > Spreading the UI definition across language formats means the developer has > to learn more than one format to get the job done - thus invoking the > eventuality; "Jack of all trades; Master of none." This also makes > maintainability dependent on local convention (which is absurd and not > dependable across implementation entities). > > The only thing it (FXML, BXML) is good for is automatic GUI builder > implementations; and it should be left at that. > > CSS is not intuitive (as is a GUI widget toolset API; in the language of > implementation). Mastery depends on memorization (which is a losing > proposition for uptake); instead of intuitive insight across consistent > methods of accomplishing tasks. > > I think in our field, if something is said often enough - it starts to be > accepted as truth. I for one would like to stand up against some of these > misnomers. > > I apologize for my emphatic expression of these points - I have been > holding this in for a long time :-P > > -- > *With kind regards,* > > David Ray > Java Solutions Architect > > *Cortical.io <http://cortical.io/>* > Sponsor of: HTM.java <https://github.com/numenta/htm.java> > > d....@cortical.io > http://cortical.io >
