Massimo wrote:
> JavaFX wishlist (from a .NET/Java programmer perspective):
>
> #1: Stability. Better handling of unresponsive apps. Even just
> exploring the official samples, I get some crashes, hangs, and minute+
> loading times.
>
> #2: As a basic barometer of quality/stability, I'd like to see a
> JavaFX-based YouTube-style web-embeddable movie player that is better
> than or at least comparable with the defacto Flash equivalents. The
> current JavaFX movie player isn't close and doesn't handle basic pause/
> skip very well.
>
> #3: Linux support. On my Ubuntu 9.04 x64 laptop, basic development
> with 1.2 seems to work very well... But using the official samples
> isn't stable. Flash isn't stable at all on Linux either. Flash is
> extremely stable on Windows, but in my experience with Ubuntu it's not
> so there is a big opportunity here.
>
> #4: Mobile support (blu-ray maybe?). I know this is coming, but it's
> still on my wish list.
>
> #5: Direct pixel buffer drawing. Obviously, JavaFX is built around the
> scene graph, and regular Java is probably better for an entire app
> built around low-level pixel drawing, but I'd still like optional
> direct pixel access in JavaFX and potentially be able to mix a small
> pixel-drawn panel in with a JavaFX scene.
>
> #6: 3D. If you could take the ease of creating 2D scenes with JavaFX
> and move that to 3D... wow! This is probably best left to the
> community to build and maintain different styles of 3D engines.
>
>
> I've done about six months of full time Silverlight work for my day
> job (pretty boring business GUI stuff). From my limited exposure,
> JavaFX has a more elegant fundamental design while Silverlight/WPF has
> a more traditional ASP.NET style of XML markup + C# code behind (which
> is perfectly good, but JavaFX is better). The Silverlight plugin and
> tools are a little more mature at this point although they have plenty
> of flaws of their own.
>
I'm in a similar situation, I use Silverlight for day job. Doesn't the
SL design makes it easier to use other .NET languages? For example it's
just as easy to create a SL app that uses VB instead of C#. The SL
tooling is far more mature, there's no comparison. What flaws do you
have in mind?
It'd be really interesting if someone could provide a detailed
comparison, in a blog post or such.
> I'd also add that at my day job, and most other paid jobs in my
> geography, most IT departments are very strict about enforcing
> Microsoft-only technology.
>
> Dick asked whether the .NET crowd disliked Java the language or the
> JVM... It's definitely neither. In terms of language and VM quality,
> C#/Java and .NET/Java are very close.
>
> The main advantage of .NET is that Microsoft has so many high-quality
> market-competitive business technologies that are all designed to work
> together: Windows, Office, IIS, SQL Server, OLAP tools, ASP.NET,
> reporting tools, SharePoint, etc. If your business makes heavy use of
> those, you really want to stick with .NET. Trying to use anything else
> for IT type integration work in a Microsoft-heavy environment is not a
> good idea.
>
>
> I agree with everything Casper said. .NET has much better integration
> with C, Microsoft definitely uses .NET (.NET really wasn't meant for
> low-level infrastructure like IE or the OS), and JavaFX's intended
> application domain of 2D GUIs is a narrow niche.
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
