Who wants to base a long term project on a framework that requires stewardship from Oracle? It's telling that no one is even commenting on this article.
Sun Microsystems in 2007 announced a re-imagining of GUI platform Swing with JavaFX. Swing, Sun said, had reached an architectural dead-end and need a reboot to compete on modern, Rich Internet Application (RIA) platforms. As Sun pitched JavaFX, Adobe brought out Flex (which is based on its Flash Player plug-in) and Microsoft …
Monday 28th November 2011 16:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
ObservableList, a new Collections class unique to JavaFX
Rx framework for .net?
(amongst others but thats the one i have been using last 2 years or so to fire events when contents of collection changes and that is really only just scratching the surface, oh and it works at all levels of the .net stack, usable not just in the enclave of the 6 or so JavaFX apps in existance)
Yet annother example why if u want it to run badly on anything use java (every other day when the java updater insists that i update it again, i see that image that says "3 billion devices are crippled by java") and no im not devoted to .net it happens to be a tool i use at the moment, same as c++, vb, sql and ASM have all been tools i have used at one point or annother. I just despise the shite i have seen called java apps, all of it is a contradictory bloated mess cobbled together with trillions of bloody xml files truly a language only of use and for use by academics and people who strive for purity of model (which really means i will build so many redundant layers into my app that it will take forever to do, but i will always look busy), whilst forgetting they get paid to deliver applications, not endless interfaces to interfaces to abstract interfaces to interfaces....
And why does it seem that every major java revision thorws the baby out with the bath water, if it was such a great platform surely major revisions would be backwardly compatible and extensions of what went before, not mutually exclusive burn it to the ground and rebuild and infinitly update to fix security holes.
Monday 28th November 2011 17:04 GMT Andy 73
Your post is fairly indicative of many programmers' attention to detail. You've flown off the handle (nice rant, 10/10 for enthusiasm) whilst missing the point of the statement completely.
Here, the word Unique was referring to "Unique to Java core Collections class", not unique to all languages.
Do you need a ladder to get off that high horse?
And as for the major revisions jibe... seriously?
Monday 28th November 2011 18:35 GMT Ramazan
Tuesday 29th November 2011 11:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
I can't work out if you are serious about your major revisions jibe or not, but it sounds as if you are, which makes me think you have no idea what you are talking about. Java has always been obsessive as preserving backwards compatibility, which is why, for example, you can still run code written in Java 1.0 against a Java 7 JVM without re-compiling it. This isn't always a good thing (it explains why we still have a java.util.Date class for instance, and why generics was implemented with type erasure).
Monday 28th November 2011 16:46 GMT elsonroa
I'd previously discounted using JavaFX on the basis of it's closed source nature and the 'like java but not really java' development model. I hate to admit it, but it now sounds like Oracle is doing a better job with JavaFX than Sun were - could be time to download the SDK and give it a second chance.
Monday 28th November 2011 16:50 GMT DrXym
Killed by its tools and esoteric dialect
There is a lot to like about JavaFX 1.x. It allowed someone to reuse large chunks of Java code with a scene language which makes it easy to produce complex layouts with animations and effects. It's just too bad that Sun / Oracle didn't bother to see things through to a product which would be useful in practice.
The problem was the tools sucked and the language was esoteric and needlessly different from Java at times. I think both combined to drive developer interest away until there wasn't any interest left. Flex and Silverlight were far more accomodating of user's needs even if they were both inferior products (Flex was singlethreaded, Silverlight was gimped .NET).
I also think Oracle squandered the chance to rejuvenate the language with Android. Instead of squabbling with Google over silly patents they should have been pushing hard to get JavaFX in there as a supported scripting API. IMO it would have been a good fit and given some decent authoring tools it would probably have become a popular platform.
So now JavaFX 2.0 is here and improves stuff. But I'm struggling to think who would care any more. Maybe the tools have improved a bit, but the world, for better or worse is looking to HTML5. I don't see it being viable tech any more. Though maybe they'll kiss and makeup with Google and salvage something out of this.
Monday 28th November 2011 17:11 GMT Andy 73
Just a little bit of history repeating itself
I can go back years through my forum posting history on The Register and find example after example commenting on how Oracle (and Sun before them) don't get the User Interface space.
It's nice to see them trying again, but there are still no great signs that they're learning from their mistakes.
Monday 28th November 2011 17:23 GMT clean_state
who needs it?
We now have HTML5 for cross-platform apps based on a "heavy" runtime, and native SDKs for programming "close to the metal" (or will have whenever Microsoft decides what the native API for Windows is, it looks like they have finally done so in Win8).
Not much space left for alternatives in the middle.
Tuesday 29th November 2011 14:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Take Google Web Toolkit !
Also, it is cross-browser-ready (no browser-version-specific coding required) and in general very robust and well-developed. Google has used it to develop Google Apps, which demonstrates GWT can be used for heavy-duty programs.