This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 16 comments

[–]stormblaast 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Yes

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately :(

[–]ladon86 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yep.

[–]ponzao 4 points5 points  (0 children)

JavaFX is like Applets on steroids, enough said.

[–]malcontent 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not too late but the combined might of MS and Adobe does make it very hard to move forward.

[–]adolfojp 5 points6 points  (6 children)

JavaFX is probably the best option available for creating rich cross platform desktop apps. They should focus on this instead of trying to fight with Flash, Silverlight, and HTML5. Because on the web they have already lost.

[–]brandf 0 points1 point  (5 children)

in what way is it 'probably the best option'? Everything I've seen of JavaFX so far has been unimpressive compared to Silverlight/WPF.

[–]joaomc 4 points5 points  (4 children)

JavaFX is probably the best option available for creating rich cross platform desktop apps

[–]brandf -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Are you trying to say Silverlight isn't cross platform?

If so, you're obviously not aware that it runs Windows, Mac, Linux, Windows Phones, and Nokia Phones.

What fraction of the market is left for JavaFX?

[–]adolfojp 5 points6 points * (1 child)

Silverlight doesn't fully compete with JavaFX on the desktop.

If I am not mistaken:

On the web JavaFX competes with Silverlight, but on the desktop it competes with full .NET WPF apps.

You can create desktop JavaFX apps with the full power of Java, with features like local database access, but Silverlight limits you to a subset of .NET and WPF.

And WPF is not cross platform.

[–]brandf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see your point, but in 2010 I would think that very few interesting apps would use a local database instead of accessing the cloud. When I think about desktop apps that I've used in the last 5 years, they all either don't need a database, or have the database on a remote server.

If your app needs a local database (maybe of offline access) and needs to run on something other than Windows, then you may be correct.

Even then I'm not convinced JavaFX is the best option. I'd have to look at AIR or some of the newer Qt stuff.

[–]abyssomega 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It does not work on Linux well, to the point of me not even bothering to check anymore. Monolight just isn't as good as Silverlight on Windows or Mac.

[–]bungle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

it's never too late, but javafx, i don't see a future in it.

[–]linusnorton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, about 5 years too late

[–]artee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Proprietary web extensions are dying (yes even Flash), and good riddance.

[–]abyssomega 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not yet, but it's dying. They need to get audio/video libraries up to snuff. They need to get graphic people easily involved with a IDE like Dreamweaver. One good way is to get on their hands and knees and beg a content company like Comedy Central to be the tech used to display their wares, and show that it's faster and better than just plain old Flash.

They need an open competition like Android's to get the ball moving as well. Also, see if they could get it working on some cellphones, too, otherwise it'll be all a waste. The internet is moving toward phone use, and like Flash, they'll be left behind if they're not careful.