Re: Developing for AWT/Swing and Android portability

Discussion in 'Java' started by Richard Maher, Aug 14, 2013.

  1. On 8/15/2013 6:18 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Martin Gregorie" wrote in message news:kueih9$tfu$...
    >
    >> Are there any decent compatibility packages that would let a Java
    >> graphical application compile and run on both Linux and Android
    >> platforms?
    >>
    >> If not, are there any decent Android emulators that can be used to
    >> develop Android graphical apps under Linux?

    >
    > For what it's worth, *all* of my future UI/front-end code written in
    > Java will be using JavaFX. If you haven't checked it out yet then I
    > strongly suggest you do. It's actually quite awesome and if you have a
    > look at the session titles from this year's impending Java One and if
    > you follow the buzz in the JavaFX developer community you will be
    > convinced that it's only a matter of time until JavaFX will run on
    > Windows, MacOS, Linux, ARM and... iOS and Android in the very near future.
    >
    > Swing/AWT is officially deprecated and will slowly shrivel and die.
    > JavaFX is the way ahead and could easily become the *best*
    > cross-platform SDK in *any* language.
    >
    > And loving it,
    >
    > -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    > _________________________________________________
    >
    > [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


    Or he could go HTML5, Javascript and CSS3 and save himself the move later?

    A mobile browser that supports Applets would be REALLY useful though!
    Richard Maher, Aug 14, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 8/14/2013 6:46 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
    > On 8/15/2013 6:18 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    >> "Martin Gregorie" wrote in message news:kueih9$tfu$...
    >>
    >>> Are there any decent compatibility packages that would let a Java
    >>> graphical application compile and run on both Linux and Android
    >>> platforms?
    >>>
    >>> If not, are there any decent Android emulators that can be used to
    >>> develop Android graphical apps under Linux?

    >>
    >> For what it's worth, *all* of my future UI/front-end code written in
    >> Java will be using JavaFX. If you haven't checked it out yet then I
    >> strongly suggest you do. It's actually quite awesome and if you have a
    >> look at the session titles from this year's impending Java One and if
    >> you follow the buzz in the JavaFX developer community you will be
    >> convinced that it's only a matter of time until JavaFX will run on
    >> Windows, MacOS, Linux, ARM and... iOS and Android in the very near
    >> future.
    >>
    >> Swing/AWT is officially deprecated and will slowly shrivel and die.
    >> JavaFX is the way ahead and could easily become the *best*
    >> cross-platform SDK in *any* language.

    >
    > Or he could go HTML5, Javascript and CSS3 and save himself the move later?


    JavaFX support FXML, JavaScript and CSS3.

    JavaFX support HTML5, Javascript and CSS3 in embedded browser.

    > A mobile browser that supports Applets would be REALLY useful though!


    Applets are not a priority any longer.

    But you can use JavaFX in applets too!

    :)

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 15, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 8/15/2013 7:05 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    >
    >> A mobile browser that supports Applets would be REALLY useful though!

    >
    > Really? Are you *still* flogging the dead Applet horse?
    >


    Unlike JavaFX, Applets add value to the client. Functionality that is
    simply unavailable erstwhile.

    Sure native apps on mobile platforms are a huge market and Apps that can
    be dragged out of the browser are a growing part of that.

    I just don't see Java as the Android or iOS as the development tool of
    choice where I've been. Maybe it's much bigger where you are.

    > --
    > And loving it,
    >
    > -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    > _________________________________________________
    >
    > [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


    Cheers Richard Maher
    Richard Maher, Aug 16, 2013
    #3
  4. On 8/15/2013 7:28 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

    > JavaFX support FXML, JavaScript and CSS3.


    And up until v2.0 mandate some bollocks proprietary scripting language IIRC?

    I wish you why but IMnsHO JavaFX was still-born with Silverlight and
    faces a similar future. Maybe that's why I just saw Larry crying into
    his beer on CBS about those "evil" Google guys. "Boo whoooo, they can't
    just copy Java sniff sniff".

    >
    > JavaFX support HTML5, Javascript and CSS3 in embedded browser.


    What value does it add except letting a bunch of fat middle-aged Java
    programmers pretend that modern GUIs and convergence still involves
    their new-COBOL?

    >
    >> A mobile browser that supports Applets would be REALLY useful though!

    >
    > Applets are not a priority any longer.


    I've never had to be number 1. Out of the lime-light much has been
    happening.

    >
    > But you can use JavaFX in applets too!


    I'd rather use Python, Ruby etc :)

    Too me Applets are for infrastructure the GUI is HTML5, CSS3, and
    Javascript.

    I think I read today that Google has pulled Microsoft's version of
    YouTube because it's not HTML5 only?

    >
    > :)
    >
    > Arne
    >


    Cheers Richard Maher
    Richard Maher, Aug 16, 2013
    #4
  5. On 8/16/2013 5:13 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 06:46:02 +0800, Richard Maher wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Or he could go HTML5, Javascript and CSS3 and save himself the move
    >> later?
    >>
    >> A mobile browser that supports Applets would be REALLY useful though!
    >>

    > That's not particularly useful for at least one of my applications, which
    > will be best run as a standalone program because end users will expect to
    > run it to display log files they've just downloaded from their IGC flight
    > recorders.
    >
    >

    Yeah you're right this part of the thread has gone OT but before I
    change the subject let me ask if you have looked at a pure WebGL, HTML5,
    Javascript, CSS3 solution? (Client side obviously, knock yourself out
    server-side.
    Richard Maher, Aug 16, 2013
    #5
  6. On 8/15/2013 7:48 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Arne Vajhøj" wrote in message
    > news:520c1295$0$304$...
    >
    >> Applets are not a priority any longer.
    >>
    >> But you can use JavaFX in applets too!

    >
    > In theory that is true but in practice the browser vendors are so
    > "anti-plugin" and especially "anti-Java" that such a deployment method
    > has no future.


    Let me make this clear ***ORACLE*** and not any browser supplier is the
    biggest obstacle and pulled ham-string that Applets have :-(

    Even the Mozilla guys (who many find Java and all plugins anathema) are
    so helpfull and engaging and tolerant when it comes to Applets and Java
    (** and iced-tea ***) that we should all be singing their praises.

    Two examples: -
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=872969

    Waiting on an Oracle bug 17232568

    And one I entered, but cannot see, that highlights the bug with
    JSObject.call() not being able to pass arrays. Java method parameters
    and return values can hanle arrays even Uint8Array views over an
    ArrayBuffer but Call() says "no".

    >
    > --
    > And loving it,
    >
    > -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    > _________________________________________________
    >
    > [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


    Cheers Richard Maher
    Richard Maher, Aug 16, 2013
    #6
  7. On 8/16/2013 5:29 PM, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Richard Maher" wrote in message news:kukq2v$jfs$...
    >
    >> And up until v2.0 mandate some bollocks proprietary scripting language
    >> IIRC?

    >
    > Yes but that was literally years ago. JFX 8 is due in early 2014.


    Ah, it's all in the next version, I get it :)

    >
    >> I wish you why but IMnsHO JavaFX was still-born with Silverlight and
    >> faces a similar future. Maybe that's why I just saw Larry crying into
    >> his beer on CBS about those "evil" Google guys. "Boo whoooo, they
    >> can't just copy Java sniff sniff".

    >
    > No, not still-born at all. Flash and Silverlight, both of which are
    > correctly categorised as dead or dying, do not actually compete with
    > JavaFX as they are primarily browser-based and relying on plug-ins.
    > JavaFX already runs on the desktop and in many embedded environments and
    > soon will run on iOS and Android. JavaFX has a very strong future.


    I certainly hope it's stronger than its "6 YEAR" past!
    >
    >> What value does it add except letting a bunch of fat middle-aged Java
    >> programmers pretend that modern GUIs and convergence still involves
    >> their new-COBOL?

    >
    > Unfair and way off the mark. Java is not and never will be the "new
    > COBOL". It is still extremely vibrant and evolving; JavaFX in particular.
    >
    >> I've never had to be number 1. Out of the lime-light much has been
    >> happening.

    >
    > Care to elaborate what has been happening?
    >
    >> I'd rather use Python, Ruby etc :)
    >>
    >> Too me Applets are for infrastructure the GUI is HTML5, CSS3, and
    >> Javascript.

    >
    > HTML5/JS/CSS3 are for building web pages.


    A limitation/designation that you find convenient. Most people see no
    such restriction.

    A lot of people also like to break an "Application" up into layers such
    as presentation, business, database or whatever takes your fancy. I
    subscribe to the school of thought that says any claim or mandate for
    Java everywhere in modern RIAs is seriously missing the point, the
    paradigm shift, and ultimately the epoch.

    Java, C#, COBOL and SQL is the mutt's nuts on the back-end but a hammer
    isn't the only tool in the box.

    >JavaFX is for build
    > applications.


    I just don't know what we've done without it. Well done with Candy Crush
    BTW.

    >
    >> I think I read today that Google has pulled Microsoft's version of
    >> YouTube because it's not HTML5 only?

    >
    > Well, you mean well I'm sure but Google has done no such thing.
    > Instead, they are making it very difficult for a software vendor who is
    > working on a YouTube app for Windows Phone by imposing content licensing
    > restrictions on them which they do not apply to similar apps on iOS or
    > Android. They are claiming that they are doing this because the app is
    > not written in HTML5 (when neither are the apps on iOS or Android) but,
    > really, it's completely politically motivated and has no technological
    > basis whatsoever. And it's crucial to see that neither Apple nor Google
    > use HTML5 for their own YouTube apps simply because it isn't suitable.
    >
    > Consider that Google still use Flash for many things like Street View
    > (last time I checked at least but I know a BETA is out too that may have
    > moved away from this).
    >
    > HTML5 is MASSIVELY OVER-HYPED!


    Keep chanting that and hugging that blanket :)

    I happen to agree with you (Web Workers are an abomination and Web
    Sockets are a joke that's about as funny as fart in an elevator) but, as
    a bag of tricks, has some wonderful enabling technology.
    >
    > --
    > And loving it,
    >
    > -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    > _________________________________________________
    >
    > [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


    Cheers Richard
    Richard Maher, Aug 16, 2013
    #7
  8. On 08/16/2013 08:16 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Richard Maher" wrote in message news:kukt2v$r2o$...

    [ SNIP ]

    >> I happen to agree with you (Web Workers are an abomination and Web
    >> Sockets are a joke that's about as funny as fart in an elevator) but,
    >> as a bag of tricks, has some wonderful enabling technology.

    >
    > Yes, as I mentioned, if you want to do anything beyond even the most
    > trivial multi-threading in a web browser you can forget it.
    >
    > And... JavaScript is an utterly awful language to attempt to use to
    > develop "apps". It was designed purely as a scripting language to
    > implement a bit of navigation logic within web pages and is really not
    > suitable for anything more advanced than that. For productivity and
    > robustness, given me a modern, truly OO statically typed language like
    > Java anytime!


    Slight quibble. I don't see "truly" and "OO" going together well, since
    OO == "object-oriented", and in many OO languages that "oriented" bit
    really just means "you can write good OO code with the tools
    provided...*if* you want to, or know how to", but that's all it means.

    Java - and I'm not dissing Java for this, many other OO languages are
    like this too - let's you write what is essentially procedural code if
    you want to, so I wouldn't use the word "truly".

    Javascript - IMHO - is in fact more OO because it's prototype-based, and
    not class-based. I'm not saying that class-based OO is worse than
    prototype-based OO, or vice versa, depends on the programmer and the
    app. But I can't help but think that a language (Javascript not being
    the only one) that dispenses with classes and just works with objects is
    pretty "OO". I think you need to be a better programmer to take
    advantage of prototype-based languages, though (not that most JS
    programmers do).

    static vs dynamic...let's dispense with that one. I've never seen any
    strong evidence in my decades of programming that this distinction
    mattered. I have rather more of a problem with implicit type
    conversions, which is a sign of a weakly-typed language, and Java is not
    immune in this regard either.

    Again, don't get me wrong: Java is my workhorse language, C# a close
    second. I wouldn't put either on a pedestal, there are quite a few
    others I'd prefer to use for various apps.

    > --
    > And loving it,
    >
    > -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    > _________________________________________________
    >
    > [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


    AHS
    --
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
    that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    -- Jonathan Swift
    Arved Sandstrom, Aug 16, 2013
    #8
  9. On 8/17/2013 8:24 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    >
    > I just think I would be far more productive coding in Java than I ever
    > would be in JavaScript


    But that's presumably because you've invested a lot of time and effort
    to develop the knowledge and techniques to make you good at it.
    Knowledge that at least to some degree you're going to have to throw
    away to make room for something more appropriate/useful/popular. Put
    down that security blanket and stop hugging that tree it's not so bad
    outside.

    > and not just because of the nature of the
    > languages but also because of the tools, editors, IDEs etc. that are
    > more advanced and work better with Java.


    The same bleating can be heard from VisualStudio people but the Web
    developer support IDEs and Debuggers have really come on in recent years.

    > Also, the Java Platform has
    > such an incredible amount of additional useful, mature functionality
    > that I would be continually writing from scratch in a pure JavaScript
    > application (or C++ or just about any other language for that matter).


    Unfortunately *Many* out there feel the same way and are compelled to
    include hundreds of MB of JS libraries to achieve the simplest most
    pedestrian of tasks :-( See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming

    And then you'll start longing for "unobtrusive Javascript" so you don't
    have to spend half and hour learning about the DOM and finally search
    out some abortion of a library that "Gives me my classes" by mutating
    JSON :-(

    As far as the perils/drawbacks of writing something from scratch, we are
    looking at sorting some Lab location on how close they are to the user
    and foun this: -

    https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAPI/Using_geolocation

    Maybe the watch event would be easier in PURE Java?

    >
    > --
    > And loving it,
    >
    > -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    > _________________________________________________
    >
    > [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


    Cheers Richard Maher
    Richard Maher, Aug 17, 2013
    #9
  10. Richard Maher

    Lew Guest

    Richard Maher wrote:
    > Qu0ll wrote:
    >> I just think I would be far more productive coding in Java than I ever
    >> would be in JavaScript

    >
    > But that's presumably because you've invested a lot of time and effort


    Presumptuous, yes.

    > to develop the knowledge and techniques to make you good at it.


    Not the reason he gave, but possible.

    > Knowledge that at least to some degree you're going to have to throw
    > away to make room for something more appropriate/useful/popular. Put


    Why will he have to do that?

    > down that security blanket and stop hugging that tree it's not so bad
    > outside.


    First of all, what is so wrong about hugging trees?

    Nice rhetoric, saying nothing.

    >> and not just because of the nature of the
    >> languages but also because of the tools, editors, IDEs etc. that are
    >> more advanced and work better with Java.


    Not the reason you posited.

    > The same bleating can be heard from VisualStudio people but the Web


    "bleating"?

    > developer support IDEs and Debuggers have really come on in recent years.


    >> Also, the Java Platform has
    >> such an incredible amount of additional useful, mature functionality
    >> that I would be continually writing from scratch in a pure JavaScript
    >> application (or C++ or just about any other language for that matter).

    >
    > Unfortunately *Many* out there feel the same way and are compelled to
    > include hundreds of MB of JS libraries to achieve the simplest most


    Evidence? Examples?

    > pedestrian of tasks :-( See
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming


    That defines an idea, but doesn't prove that applies to a criticism of Java.

    > And then you'll start longing for "unobtrusive Javascript" so you don't
    > have to spend half and hour learning about the DOM and finally search
    > out some abortion of a library that "Gives me my classes" by mutating
    > JSON :-(


    WTF?

    > As far as the perils/drawbacks of writing something from scratch, we are
    > looking at sorting some Lab location on how close they are to the user
    > and foun this: -
    >
    > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAPI/Using_geolocation
    >
    > Maybe the watch event would be easier in PURE Java?


    WTF?

    And please,

    >> -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    >> _________________________________________________
    >>
    >> [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


    don't quote sigs.

    You used some rhetoric, but I don't detect a point. Is Java bad in your opinion?

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Aug 17, 2013
    #10
  11. On 8/16/2013 5:20 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
    > On 8/15/2013 7:48 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    >> "Arne Vajhøj" wrote in message
    >> news:520c1295$0$304$...
    >>
    >>> Applets are not a priority any longer.
    >>>
    >>> But you can use JavaFX in applets too!

    >>
    >> In theory that is true but in practice the browser vendors are so
    >> "anti-plugin" and especially "anti-Java" that such a deployment method
    >> has no future.

    >
    > Let me make this clear ***ORACLE*** and not any browser supplier is the
    > biggest obstacle and pulled ham-string that Applets have :-(


    Oracle is a business.

    Oracle does not make any money from applet technology.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 17, 2013
    #11
  12. On 8/16/2013 4:58 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
    > On 8/15/2013 7:05 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    >>
    >>> A mobile browser that supports Applets would be REALLY useful though!

    >>
    >> Really? Are you *still* flogging the dead Applet horse?
    >>

    >
    > Unlike JavaFX, Applets add value to the client. Functionality that is
    > simply unavailable erstwhile.


    There are some alternatives.

    You may not like them, but they are still there.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 17, 2013
    #12
  13. On 08/16/2013 09:24 PM, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Martin Gregorie" wrote in message news:kumc8d$7am$...
    >
    >> Agreed. The observation that "a 'Real Programmer' can write FORTRAN in
    >> any language" is still true.

    >
    > I agree with you Martin on this point and also with Arved on the essence
    > of his prior post.
    >
    > Bad programmers will be bad programmers in any language.
    >
    > I just think I would be far more productive coding in Java than I ever
    > would be in JavaScript and not just because of the nature of the
    > languages but also because of the tools, editors, IDEs etc. that are
    > more advanced and work better with Java. Also, the Java Platform has
    > such an incredible amount of additional useful, mature functionality
    > that I would be continually writing from scratch in a pure JavaScript
    > application (or C++ or just about any other language for that matter).
    >
    > --
    > And loving it,
    >
    > -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    > _________________________________________________
    >
    > [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


    A programmer is typically more productive if they specialize in just a
    few languages, although I think they should know a lot. There are dozens
    of languages out there that have adequate tools support and good
    libraries, IMO, so that's not really the factor. What it comes down to
    is high proficiency with 2-4 languages.

    Last 5 years, for example, most everything I've done was Java and C#.
    Those are my bread and butter. But I was pretty proud of a week-long
    firefighting emergency project I knocked out a week ago that was pure
    Perl, and it was the right tool for the job...although God help me, I
    used vi for the editing. And a couple of years ago I did a bit of C, and
    last year a bit of Scala. I'm talking production work here, not dabbling.

    But I saw a guy we brought in beginning of the year buzzsaw his way
    through PHP, and I've seen guys do that with Javascript, and I've seen
    people solve a problem very quickly with F# where it would take me 5x as
    long with the same language. Not because I'm stupid, but I don't have
    the time to learn everything. And you're right, they know the toolsets.
    Where you're wrong is that the toolsets and libraries do exist for
    almost everything you've heard of. Haskell? You need an IDE and build
    system? Get Leksah and the Haskell Platform. J, which is quite obscure?
    Not to worry - very deep tools support. There is good tools support for
    Fortran - I'll make Martin happy by stating that I still write programs
    in it. :)

    And Javascript has that support too. So does C++ - if you're writing
    from scratch in C++ these days you probably didn't look hard enough.

    I'm with you, though, on one point - I am simply way more productive in
    Java than in all but 2 or 3 other languages. Not short term, but long
    term. And to no small degree because so many other people know it and
    use it.

    Java is a good solid GP language. Note I don't say OO or anything else,
    I think it's a good general purpose language.

    AHS

    --
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
    that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    -- Jonathan Swift
    Arved Sandstrom, Aug 17, 2013
    #13
  14. On 8/16/2013 5:06 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
    > On 8/15/2013 7:28 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >
    >> JavaFX support FXML, JavaScript and CSS3.

    >
    > And up until v2.0 mandate some bollocks proprietary scripting language
    > IIRC?


    JavaFX 1.x used FXScript.

    In many ways a very interesting language. The mix of declarative
    and imperative style was interesting, the variable bind was interesting
    etc..

    But with 2.x Oracle chose the more standard path led by Adobe and MS
    of a ML and standard language.

    >> JavaFX support HTML5, Javascript and CSS3 in embedded browser.

    >
    > What value does it add except letting a bunch of fat middle-aged Java
    > programmers pretend that modern GUIs and convergence still involves
    > their new-COBOL?


    The ability to reuse web artifacts in a desktop app can be
    quite useful.

    >> But you can use JavaFX in applets too!

    >
    > I'd rather use Python, Ruby etc :)


    You can use Python and Ruby in applets.

    > Too me Applets are for infrastructure the GUI is HTML5, CSS3, and
    > Javascript.


    Which is a probably a bit rare, but it does make sense.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 17, 2013
    #14
  15. On 8/16/2013 5:29 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Richard Maher" wrote in message news:kukq2v$jfs$...
    >
    >> And up until v2.0 mandate some bollocks proprietary scripting language
    >> IIRC?

    >
    > Yes but that was literally years ago.


    A year is not that long time in some contexts.

    > JFX 8 is due in early 2014.


    Note that it is 1->2->8 so the jump is not as big as the version
    number jump indicates.

    >> I wish you why but IMnsHO JavaFX was still-born with Silverlight and
    >> faces a similar future. Maybe that's why I just saw Larry crying into
    >> his beer on CBS about those "evil" Google guys. "Boo whoooo, they
    >> can't just copy Java sniff sniff".

    >
    > No, not still-born at all. Flash and Silverlight, both of which are
    > correctly categorised as dead or dying, do not actually compete with
    > JavaFX as they are primarily browser-based and relying on plug-ins.
    > JavaFX already runs on the desktop and in many embedded environments and
    > soon will run on iOS and Android. JavaFX has a very strong future.


    Allow us to be skeptical.

    Java GUI has never been a success before - not that likely that JavaFX
    will change it.

    >> What value does it add except letting a bunch of fat middle-aged Java
    >> programmers pretend that modern GUIs and convergence still involves
    >> their new-COBOL?

    >
    > Unfair and way off the mark. Java is not and never will be the "new
    > COBOL". It is still extremely vibrant and evolving; JavaFX in particular.


    Eventually it will.

    It is not realistic to expect any programming language to stay around
    forever as mainstream.

    > HTML5 is MASSIVELY OVER-HYPED!


    True.

    But if the hype drives senior management investment decisions, then ...

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 17, 2013
    #15
  16. On 8/16/2013 8:24 PM, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Martin Gregorie" wrote in message news:kumc8d$7am$...
    >
    >> Agreed. The observation that "a 'Real Programmer' can write FORTRAN in
    >> any language" is still true.

    >
    > I agree with you Martin on this point and also with Arved on the essence
    > of his prior post.
    >
    > Bad programmers will be bad programmers in any language.
    >
    > I just think I would be far more productive coding in Java than I ever
    > would be in JavaScript and not just because of the nature of the
    > languages but also because of the tools, editors, IDEs etc. that are
    > more advanced and work better with Java. Also, the Java Platform has
    > such an incredible amount of additional useful, mature functionality
    > that I would be continually writing from scratch in a pure JavaScript
    > application (or C++ or just about any other language for that matter).


    You can do JS dev in Eclipse and JS runs fine on the JVM.

    :)

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 17, 2013
    #16
  17. On 8/17/2013 9:55 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 8/16/2013 5:20 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
    >> On 8/15/2013 7:48 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    >>> "Arne Vajhøj" wrote in message
    >>> news:520c1295$0$304$...
    >>>
    >>>> Applets are not a priority any longer.
    >>>>
    >>>> But you can use JavaFX in applets too!
    >>>
    >>> In theory that is true but in practice the browser vendors are so
    >>> "anti-plugin" and especially "anti-Java" that such a deployment method
    >>> has no future.

    >>
    >> Let me make this clear ***ORACLE*** and not any browser supplier is the
    >> biggest obstacle and pulled ham-string that Applets have :-(

    >
    > Oracle is a business.
    >
    > Oracle does not make any money from applet technology.


    How much do they make from JavaFX?


    >
    > Arne
    >
    >


    Cheers Richard Maher
    Richard Maher, Aug 17, 2013
    #17
  18. On 8/16/2013 11:26 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
    > On 8/17/2013 9:55 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 8/16/2013 5:20 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
    >>> On 8/15/2013 7:48 AM, Qu0ll wrote:
    >>>> "Arne Vajhøj" wrote in message
    >>>> news:520c1295$0$304$...
    >>>>
    >>>>> Applets are not a priority any longer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But you can use JavaFX in applets too!
    >>>>
    >>>> In theory that is true but in practice the browser vendors are so
    >>>> "anti-plugin" and especially "anti-Java" that such a deployment method
    >>>> has no future.
    >>>
    >>> Let me make this clear ***ORACLE*** and not any browser supplier is the
    >>> biggest obstacle and pulled ham-string that Applets have :-(

    >>
    >> Oracle is a business.
    >>
    >> Oracle does not make any money from applet technology.

    >
    > How much do they make from JavaFX?


    That is a very good question.

    My assumption will be that Oracle will not make any
    money from JavaFX at all.

    But the calendar says 2013 now.

    When SUN started the JavaFX project back in 2007 the world
    was different.

    Adobe and MS were quite successful with Flex and SL for RIA. And
    they were actually selling development tools and server side
    stuff for it.

    Well - the "HTML5 wave" killed that business opportunity.

    The new smart touch screen smartphones and tablets was just
    around the corner and a touch screen friendly Java GUI API
    could make Java the standard on those and be the foundation
    for a lot of business.

    Well - Google chose their own Java GUI API for Android, so
    no business there either.

    But I am sure that back in 2007 then JavaFX looked not only
    as a technical interesting project but also as a commercial
    interesting project.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 19, 2013
    #18
  19. On 8/16/2013 9:59 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    > Java is a good solid GP language. Note I don't say OO or anything else,
    > I think it's a good general purpose language.


    I would put it this way: unless you have specific reasons to prefer
    another language then Java is a good choice.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 19, 2013
    #19
  20. On 8/19/2013 9:33 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>> Oracle does not make any money from applet technology.

    >>
    >> How much do they make from JavaFX?

    >
    > That is a very good question.
    >
    > My assumption will be that Oracle will not make any
    > money from JavaFX at all.
    >
    > But the calendar says 2013 now.


    Hold on Arne! Please put those goal posts down long enough to
    acknowledge that what is to follow is a stream of subjective time-warped
    platitudes that somehow seek to justify any continued investment
    (user-time or Oracle-money) in a product that you personally like - JavaFX.

    Conversely you are full of FUD for a much more worthy and feature rich
    architecture that you are less fond of - Applets.

    Ok, back to memory lane:-

    >
    > When SUN started the JavaFX project back in 2007 the world
    > was different.
    >
    > Adobe and MS were quite successful with Flex and SL for RIA. And
    > they were actually selling development tools and server side
    > stuff for it.
    >
    > Well - the "HTML5 wave" killed that business opportunity.
    >
    > The new smart touch screen smartphones and tablets was just
    > around the corner and a touch screen friendly Java GUI API
    > could make Java the standard on those and be the foundation
    > for a lot of business.
    >
    > Well - Google chose their own Java GUI API for Android, so
    > no business there either.
    >
    > But I am sure that back in 2007 then JavaFX looked not only
    > as a technical interesting project but also as a commercial
    > interesting project.


    And trying to make the OP's selection easier and bring this back
    on-topic that me re-iterate that JavaFX is a dead-end unless it is 2007
    where you live. Actually it was a pile of shite back then too!

    This is why no one has done anything with it in 6 years.
    >
    > Arne
    >
    >


    Cheers Richard Maher
    >
    >
    >


    PS. Came across this today following up the Geolocation stuff: -
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Kilimanjaro

    Don't spend a lot of time of on them but it's worth while being aware!

    I'm sure you can suck some of your customers in to paying big bickies
    for a dead-end technology for a while just because you're all too afraid
    to leave the warm and fuzzies of a Java UI, but it's "when" not "if".

    Now if we can only get rid of that useless prick Larry put in charge of
    Applets then Java may still have a presence on the client!
    Richard Maher, Aug 19, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sterta bole
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    710
    sterta bole
    Aug 27, 2012
  2. Arne Vajhøj
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    224
    Arne Vajhøj
    Aug 14, 2013
  3. Stefan Ram
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    301
    Joerg Meier
    Dec 31, 2013
  4. Joerg Meier
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    228
    markspace
    Aug 15, 2013
  5. Arne Vajhøj
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    317
    Arne Vajhøj
    Aug 17, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page