Jason Bullers wrote: Java 8 is still relatively new, and IMO, JavaFX isn't worth migrating to until you have Java 8.
Too bad that JavaFX/Scene Bulder was a clean and easy solution for great desktop apps....
Karthik Shiraly wrote: if you have already made up your mind, that's ok too.
John Tsioumpris wrote:I can't say that i have made my mind but i am in the middle of a crossroad and i have a decision to make ....
either stick to Java/FX or turn to NodeJs/Js ...i am afraid i am rather old and i don't have room for a 2nd chance
Tim Moores wrote:Client-side Java is dead in general...
Stevens Miller wrote:
Tim Moores wrote:Client-side Java is dead in general...
Wow, that's quite a statement, Tim. What makes you think so?
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Stevens Miller wrote:
Tim Moores wrote:Client-side Java is dead in general...
Wow, that's quite a statement, Tim. What makes you think so?
If by that he's referring to Applets, then I agree with him.
If he means desktop applications, that's more debatable, but has always been a much smaller market than the server-side Java powering the web.
What I'm wondering about is how popular Java is today as a language for creating desktop applications, compared with other programming languages.
Stevens Miller wrote:
Yeah, also agreed. What I'm wondering about is how successful Java is doing today as a language for creating desktop applications, compared with other programming languages.
Perseverance is best when informed.
Tom Nielson wrote:When you make a software that is only used by 20 employees in your own company, it hardly makes sense to distribute it as a web application.
Bear Bibeault wrote:While I agree with much of what you posted, I disagree with:
Tom Nielson wrote:When you make a software that is only used by 20 employees in your own company, it hardly makes sense to distribute it as a web application.
I can bang out a complex web application a lot easier and quicker than I can learn JavaFX. Your statement is only true for companies that have resources that already know JavaFX and can whip a desktop application faster than a web app. Companies that already have web application expertise are a different matter.
But our small company, where the users of any internal app likely number two dozen or less, finds it far more efficient to use web apps over desktop apps.
There's also the whole discussion regarding versioning and deployment points, but that's been discussed to death elsewhere and I won't repeat here.
Bear Bibeault wrote:I can bang out a complex web application a lot easier and quicker than I can learn JavaFX.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:
Bear Bibeault wrote:I can bang out a complex web application a lot easier and quicker than I can learn JavaFX.
Does choosing not to use JavaFX imply a Web app? Swing works fine on desktop apps. I think we're mixing up some of the issues here. Applets are dead outside of a controlled environment, for security reasons. In a corporate context, some people still say they make sense because it is easy to deploy and upgrade applets, and one can (or should) be able to trust the corporation's own applets.
I took Tom's point about using jar files instead of Web apps in a small corporate setting as not a choice between Web apps and JavaFX, but a choice between Web apps and desktop apps.
Tom Nielson wrote:That makes sense, and that's impressive and surprising to me. What does your web stack look like?
Stevens Miller wrote:
Bear Bibeault wrote:I can bang out a complex web application a lot easier and quicker than I can learn JavaFX.
Does choosing not to use JavaFX imply a Web app?
Stevens Miller wrote:I took Tom's point about using jar files instead of Web apps in a small corporate setting as not a choice between Web apps and JavaFX, but a choice between Web apps and desktop apps.
John Tsioumpris wrote:Hello to everybody....
For the past year i have being working with JavaFX for diploma thesis and it played a more than substantial part in the final outcome...
Naturally i was planning to get a even more familiar for my future plans and learn it even more ....
BUT....
i read a lot of posts around the Net that JavaFX is rather dead and probably it would get abandoned in the coming releases of Java...
So i am asking ...should i continue to work with JavaFX or abandon it in favor of another (Swing ?)
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:I wouldn't give it up on JavaFX or Swing just yet, Mike. You can easily find articles declaring each dead for almost their entire lifetimes, yet both are still here.
I'm curious, though: if you haven't been using Swing for that long, what have you been using? Or, maybe, your programs don't have UIs?
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Campbell Ritchie wrote:There is a difference between dead, hard to use, and poorly documented.
Mike London wrote:...the amount of effort to learn FX (the "learn" book is over 1,200 pages!!!) can't really be justified given other more approachable technologies like Node.js.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:(don't anyone tell Bear I haven't read his book yet
).
Mike London wrote:There has to be a more straightforward, less frustrating, and fast way to build user interfaces than "Layout Managers".
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Bear Bibeault wrote:Devil's advocate: as you are already familiar with web technologies, why bother with desktop apps at all? Any app that doesn't need to directly interface to resources on the local machine (vast majority) can be delivered as a web-faced app if that's tech that you are more comfortable with.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:
Mike London wrote:There has to be a more straightforward, less frustrating, and fast way to build user interfaces than "Layout Managers".
Ah, now that is a fish of a different color. Yes, LMs can be a pain. Personally, I think too much time is spent on them in most of the general "here's Java" books. The reason I feel that way is that I use NetBeans for most of my work, and the integrated Matisse GUI editor lets me ignore the LM almost entirely. In the IDE, the initial setting is "Free Design," which is really hiding the fact that it constructs and uses a GroupLayout object as its LM. For the most part, that just lets me drag and drop the Swing controls I want from the toolbox onto a JPanel and they just stay where I put them. There are some cute things you can do with "glue" and "struts" and so forth (really just Box.Filler objects), but I rarely use those.
Last I looked, Oracle no longer supported SceneBuilder, their only GUI editor for JavaFX. Many of the reports of JavaFX's death seem to rely on this fact, as it does seem silly to tout a GUI toolkit as the most up-to-date choice while not only lacking a an interactive editor for its use, but after actually abandoning the only such editor they had. Meanwhile, the Matisse editor that is integral to NetBeans (and also to Eclipse, I think) does a fine job of letting me build Swing GUIs quickly and easily, and I never think about the LM when doing so.
Everybody's invited. Except this tiny ad:
Smokeless wood heat with a rocket mass heater
https://woodheat.net
|