Two items for us
1) focus on bug-free functionality over new features.
2) require a U.S. $50.00 a year fee per corporate entity for commercial
application usage. This is very reasonable and would finally secure
JavaFX's future as a development platform.
I feel without 2) above we will find ourselves wandering around
cyberspace hoping for a benefactor or the charity of volunteers and
their spare time.
hth.
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 5:52 AM, John-Val Rose
<johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote:
That video is typical marketing “smoke and mirrors”.
With no access to the code of either app, it is simply unfair and
disingenuous to claim a performance advantage.
I am certain I could post an almost identical comparison video where
the results would be the complete opposite.
Yeah, good programmers can write slow code (especially if you have a
motive)...
On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:29, Johan Vos <johan....@gluonhq.com> wrote:
We can't defeat QT in performance, but we can defeat it at
applicability
and just don't get too far behind QT in performance. (bad example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh6K-yEp_JY)
That video demonstrates the creator has absolutely no development
skills in
Java, or he intentionally misleads the viewer. I leave it to the
reader to
judge what would be worst.
I am not going to make performance statements without numbers, but
my first
observations using JavaFX 11 with the Bellsoft Liberica VM are very
encouraging (see
https://gluonhq.com/javafx-11-early-access-on-embedded/)
- Johan
