1. May 8th, 2007

    JavaFX: Pass. Maybe in 2.0.

    If I understand it correctly, JavaFX is Sun’s answer to Flash. I just can’t seem to remember what the question was.

    It’s not exactly Java and not exactly JavaScript, which is not a problem per se. But it doesn’t pick up the best traits of either one. It’s closer to JavaScript in capabilities, and it fixes some of the obvious flaws in JavaScript. Shame they didn’t fix JavaScript itself.

    Take for example the JavaFX object notation. From a distance, it looks just like JSON. Yes! Move closer. It’s just different enough, so you can’t send a JSON response to either JavaScript or JavaFX client. We don’t even know it’s useful yet, and already we need to write more server code.

    There’s something very simplistic about JavaFX. I’m thinking, if someone wanted to write the BASIC equivalent of Java, what would it look like? The BASIC I remember had very few basic types. It had functions, and separately it had operations, which it called GOSUBs. Uncanny. I guess, time to dust off my BASIC skills.

    JavaFX takes some ideas from other languages and implements them in a simplistic, pre-canned way. There’s list comprehension, but only for certain values of comprehension. Closures, but only over arrays. Which are not matrixes, and don’t double as hashes. There’s deffered work, but no way to control it.

    It’s as if someone wanted to create a simpler Java. But instead of working towards a language that makes software development simpler and easier, they dumbed the language down.

    There are some smart features, but they’re baked into the language. So it’s either enough for all your needs, or you need to look elsewhere. And that’s the problem. Pick it up, write your first 100-line application, see how easy it is, maybe even have fun. But for the next app, you might spend an unnecessary 100 lines just working around a built-in limit of the language.

    Perhaps there’s more to it. The triggers, the insert/update methods, the select statements; I’m guessing native XML and SQL support baked into the language in the future. Maybe it will grow up to be a real language. But right now, it looks like some fish and salty chips, but not enough rods.

    (It is open source, though, which keeps me from saying “no thank you, pass the BBQ sauce”. Let’s see what the community can make from it.)

    Posted by Assaf Filed in general

    1. May 9th, 2007

      jaaron

      JavaFX appears to be based on F3 which was intended for UI development, not as a general purpose language. So that might explain some of the shortcomings:

      http://blogs.sun.com/chrisoliver/category/F3

    2. May 9th, 2007

      Spike

      I think that Sun is expecting JavaFX to be as much of a mobile platform as a Flash competitor. At the JavaOne conference they are showing off a JavaFX-based mobile OS that looks very much like a knockoff of the iPhone. I think their plan is to license it widely and capture the segment of the mobile phone market too cheap to buy the Apple product.

    3. May 11th, 2007

      about:blank » Blog Archive » Quebrando a web

      [...] JavaFX: Pass. Maybe in 2.0 [...]

    4. Jul 20th, 2007

      Kishore

      JavaFX is strange, I believe it may be more closer to java/javascript syntax(I am not talking about JSON look, but the function, variable declarations etc). u need to write more code some times.
      I wrote few programs, I like few features like bind,triggers, they remove alot of unnecessary code when developing animations.but still I am confused with this language.

    5. Jul 23rd, 2007

      All in a days work…

      [...] JavaFX: Pass. Maybe in 2.0. SLAM! It’s not exactly Java and not exactly JavaScript, which is not a problem per se. But it doesn’t pick up the best traits of either one. [...]

    Your comment, here ⇓

    Or using OpenID