Good luck to you Erik. I totally agree with you and hope you succeed. If 
there's any way I can help, I will do just that.

Felix

> On 19 Apr 2016, at 04:39, Erik De Rijcke <derijcke.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm currently looking if I can get some robovm fork kickstarted. (
> https://github.com/FlexoVM/flexovm/issues/4 ).
> 
> It's really a shame that for this one time Java has a real nice aot
> llvm compiler, MS kills it. Being able to compile Java (or any
> bytecode language) to a native, fast and small executable (especially
> for arm/embedded use which does not require an Oracle license) would
> be *really* cool. Let's see if we can continue to make this happen in
> one way or another.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Felix Bembrick
> <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So what AOT will you be using now? The last RoboVM AOT or something else?
>> 
>>> On 19 Apr 2016, at 03:15, Johan Vos <johan....@gluonhq.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Indeed, this doesn't have any impact on JavaFX.
>>> The Gluon tools are currently using the RoboVM AOT 1.8, which was the last 
>>> open-source version.
>>> 
>>> RoboVM delivered a whole set of products, including an AOT, but also a 
>>> system that provides some JNI functionality, a set of bindings that create 
>>> Java classes that have a 1-1 mapping to native iOS classes, and a whole 
>>> "Studio" allowing developers to create applications.
>>> 
>>> Only the AOT is relevant to us. We don't use the bindings, as we happen to 
>>> have a great set of UI classes: the JavaFX platform. We don't need the 
>>> studio, as we directly provide plugins for NetBeans, IntelliJ and Eclipse.
>>> 
>>> The idea of JavaFX is to deliver a cross-platform UI for all devices. 
>>> RoboVM took a different approach, as they mainly promoted creating an iOS 
>>> specific UI (using the Java bindings to the native iOS UI components) and 
>>> an Android specific UI.
>>> 
>>> We had different views on a cross-platform UI (JavaFX) versus a 
>>> platform-specific UI, but here is no doubt the RoboVM team consist of great 
>>> developers and it is a real pity and shame they won't be able to continue 
>>> working on their product.
>>> 
>>> But for JavaFX and Gluon, it doesn't make a difference.
>>> 
>>> - Johan
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Steve Hannah <st...@weblite.ca> wrote:
>>>> According to Gluon, they're not impacted by this.
>>>> https://twitter.com/GluonHQ/status/721784161728471041
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Felix Bembrick 
>>>>> <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I just read this article which states that RoboVM is effectively 
>>>>> "shutting down".
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.voxxed.com/blog/2016/04/robovm/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Given that they seem to be a critical part of the puzzle that is making 
>>>>> JavaFX viable on mobile platforms, what does this actually mean for that 
>>>>> goal?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there an alternative technology or product that can fill this void? Or 
>>>>> is the final nail in the coffin for JavaFX to ever be a truly viable 
>>>>> cross platform technology?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Felix
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Steve Hannah
>>>> Web Lite Solutions Corp.
>>> 

Reply via email to