What is Digg?45 Comments
- qbix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27I'm all for competition but I really don't want to go back to the days when I had to install a plugin for every website with some sort of multimedia element in it.
- monkeywaffles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@kcorax https://openjfx.dev.java.net/Getting_Started_With_JavaFX.html
looks like it will still look as ugly as applets do. In fact, I really don't see much of a difference/impact this would have over just running a jnlp webstart app. Sure, the language is a bit different, but it doesn't look any easier for development either, over what the better IDE's already give you for design.
[SplitView {
weight: 0.30
content: ListBox {
selection: bind model.selectedImageIndex
cells: bind foreach (file in model.imageFiles)
ListCell {
text: bind file
}
}
},
...etc
This is really nothing new or innovative guys.. - zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20is that a serious question? you mean you've never run applets?
- thebyte2005, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@zatrix
Every demo I've seen and all the documentation I've read so far seems to indicate that apps written in JavaFX will run outside of the browser. - offwhite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Again Sun is about 1 to 2 years behind the game. Microsoft is also late to the game with Silverlight, but at least they have a track record of building some support around their products with MSIE and .NET. I think the last big push Sun made for their products was the Java Desktop which pretty much did nothing with Java and was a complete failure. And for the moment I can choose between Flex which can talk to Java and Silverlight which can talk to .NET. Why would I want to use JavaFX? It offers scripting, but I can already use Javascript pretty well without a heavy runtime. It seems like Sun just announced this shortly after the Silverlight release just to show they are still around. What is most disappointing about what I read so far is that Sun will just release a framework and let other companies build they tools for it. They did the same thing with JSF years ago and we are still waiting for a good tool to support it.
- estacado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The problem with Java is it is difficult to make something look good. The foundation of the language has always been about being a "powerful" language that can give you total control of what you're doing. The Swing and other fancy U.I. stuff only came when people who want to make their Java apps look good find it difficult to do so, and even now, the capabilities and performance of the U.I. aren't that impressive. In retrospect, Flash's foundation has always been making beautiful U.I. that can do fancy things, and making it easy to code it. I tried out JavaFX just now, and still, it is slightly sluggish compared to Flash.
Java FX: http://download.java.net/general/openjfx/demos/studiomoto.jnlp
Flash: http://motomusic.2advanced.com/studiomoto.php
Show me a relatively complex Java FX app that runs as smoothly as its Flash counterpart, and looks as beautiful, then, I'll believe Sun has a chance in the Rich Internet Application field. For now, their strength still lie in mobile devices with J2ME. With Flash making inroads there, this move is really about their survival than about reviving the "applet" years. - scruffles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7JavaFX just needs a JVM. You probably already have one.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"JavaFX just needs a JVM. You probably already have one."
From memory Windows doesn't ship with a JVM and they actually removed it from their automatic download system sometime with Windows 98, I remember having a whole load of trouble finding a way to install it, it seemed like a fairly open stab at Sun from MS, I ended up having to download a 30mb JRE from Sun's website on a 56k connection to get Java applets/software to run.
If you running Linux you might have a install of Java but even then a lot of the distros won't ship it because its not Open (It is becoming open now but there are still libraries that need to be filled in). Also many distros won't ship it because there isn't any software that is installed by default that needs Java and it can just be downloaded with the few programs that need it (Often a non-sun version, by default Gentoo installed blackdown-jre unless you went to extra effort to install the sun version, not sure if that still the case as i ditched Gentoo a while back and Ubuntu Feisty ships with gij for Java version 1.4.2). - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"omg look at the monkeywaffles link. What do we have to do to get antialias in Java apps, sacrifice our young to Schwartz or sth ?"
You already can, it's pretty easy to do in fact:
http://java.sun.com/products/java-media/2D/samples/java2demo/Java2Demo.html - GMFlash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I also noticed that the JavaFX version of that site took up about 80-100 megs of ram while the Flash version + Firefox didn't take up any more than 50 megs. Hovering back and forth over the tabs quickly took about 15-20% cpu in Flash and 100% cpu in JavaFX. Seems a bit heavy on the resources for a RIA if you ask me!
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That exactly why I think Microsofts Faux Flash is silly. Why reinvent Flash when you could put those resources into making your browser better.
- Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thus far, I give it a hearty "meh", unless it comes out with some really snazzy features. And I kind of assumed they would jump on the band-wagon and adopt an XML-based interface specification. Bummer.
- scruffles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Subpixel Anti-Aliasing is on by default in Java 6 (the current version):
http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2005/07/26/lcdtext.html - scottschiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Search engine indexing and content accessibility are other points of concern, similar to Flash binary movies. Without HTML content for the search engines or non-plugin-enabled agents to parse content, your app isn't likely to be found or "relevant" even if you're serving up useful information.
- seppevs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, from wikipedia:
"Java started as a project called "Oak" (The name came from an oak tree that stood outside the Sun Microsystems office) by James Gosling in June 1991 for use in a set top box project." - regeya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4About friggin' time. They tried getting people to write applets, and they're still too frickin' heavy to be practical.
Hey, as long as people are competing with Microsoft and Adobe, I'm happy. They need competition. Now if only we could build standardized media support into the browser and get consistent SVG... - cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://blogs.sun.com/chrisoliver/category/F3
more good stuff from JavaFX formally F3 - bradspry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dear Sun,
You can shove Java where the sun (no pun intended) doesn't shine. - KCorax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@trogdoor That's a 2d drawing demo, Java still can't do antialiased UI fonts. Look at the freaking link monkeywaffles link which is as fresh as the JavaFX itself: https://openjfx.dev.java.net/Getting_Started_With_JavaFX.html
- stockjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Java is a programmers programmer language. Hence the funky UI stuff. Silverlight and Flex have backing from both programmers and designers. Flex has the long standing flash core to stand on just by itself.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is an exciting technology, actually, among other similar ones - if the technology's sound, I think the day could go to whoever can get the *best developer tools* available/deployed to the most developers.
- madhighlandcow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"some" backend programming?
Java runs the Mars Rovers.
mhc - stockjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Java is proving to be a dinosaur very quickly. Its useful and powerful for some backend programming, but overall its not quite keeping up with the rich web application crowd. I've said it once and I'll say it again, Flex, and now MS with Silverlight will prove to be viable not just for making neat looking UI, but as a robust application framework. Silverlight could be scary if MS packs in full C# integration.
- Illustrious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bull. I've seen some really, really nice stuff done in JSP with JS & AJAX, hooked via Spring MVC to a Java app tier. Skilled Java front-enders can make this stuff dance. (Disclaimer: I'm more of an app-tier guy myself.)
- senzafine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I swear...sometimes I think people are on crack. In this instance...Sun. I'm speechless.
- pineappleclock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sun should take a page from Microsoft's play book and drop the "java" name - for too many people Java invokes memories of sluggish, ugly sites which wreak havoc on their browsers. Microsoft is basically re-deploying ActiveX with .NET + sandboxing and calling it Silverlight, and for good reason - even the most nubile of end users knows to fear the name "ActiveX"
- lamestory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1more reliable TC blog spam from WebTech. Keep up the good work, buddy.
- smitting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now that Adobe has open-sourced the Flex SDK, I could care less about them open-sourcing flash. I haven't used flash components on the web for a while just because of the maintenance difficulties... version controlling flash isn't impossible, but Flex being flash written in code makes it much easier.
I have a softspot in my heart for Java (although I use c# now) but having a presentation layer built on top of an animation engine (Flash) will produce better looking results than something that's designed to be a do-everythingvirtual machine (Java). Since Flash 9 uses JIT for actionscript, I don't see any more excuses for using Java in web browsers. - KCorax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@scruffles, once you get to find jre here http://java.sun.com/ (it's a test of wits really, only the worthy pass) you get a /customized/ version for xp (breaks vista) that has the antialias on and the latest for osx which looks like crap, Apple's build was 88 last time I checked.
- Caulfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@estacado
It's not so much about their survival. Java isn't going anywhere. How many mobile phone do you know that run Flash? Now how many run Java? Exactly.
Considering there are 20 phones sold for every personal computer, the coming fight is going to be fought on handsets. Whether Flash or JavaFX comes out on top in the PC space is irrelevant. - krwhite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This doesn't look like it'll compete head to head with Flash & Silverlight. It looks like a 'real' .NET form system.. Real as in, well it actually does run on multiple operating systems, and is truly transferable to the web, with absolutely no modification, if I get the spirit of it anyway. It's provides a simpler client-to-server method than browsers alone can provide, in a programmatic sense. It's certainly not going to replace AJAX technologies, but it's need certainly exists in corporate markets. They may have an extremely broad scope of vision for it, as they should, but I see it being used by businesses. Banks, Tech support centers, etc.. You know what I mean. Basic corporate environments.
- ChelseaBlacker, on 12/12/2008, -0/+0And so JavaFX begins it's steady break through...this post also looks at similar issues:
http://www.itjoblog.co.uk/2008/12/whats-the-use-of ... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why O' why won't Adobe OpenSource flash itself. This is probably the last chance to do so and have a decent impact before Silverflash takes over, thankfully it wasn't finshed in time to ship installed with Vista otherwise flash would probably be well on the way to being dead by now.
Any system that requires the user to download something to browse a website will almost definitely be ignored for one that doesn't assuming it offers most of the functionality. I wouldn't be surprised if MS removed the few clicks automatic plugin downloading from IE in favor of 'security' to stop flash etc... being easy to install.
Having an OpenSource flash might possibly be enough to keep it around, it could be shipped in Firefox by default for instance.
Even if it is open it might not live, Netscape opened up Mozilla when IE came into existence, IE still has %85 of the market share and there are already plenty of sites that only work in IE for no good reason. I can only hope that a majority of universitys that are producing the new software developers support portability. My uni does most CS stuff on a Solaris system. - lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2No.
- lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Silverlight will require browser plugins. It's the same old ActiveX...extended.
- mjgardner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Didn't Java *start* as a language for TV set-top boxes?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3* pukes * (then laughter) (then puke again a little bit as I laugh some more)
- sjetha, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I hate it when people write sth.
- cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2already do that for flash , silverlight will require plugin, its already done.
http://siliconvalleysleuth.co.uk/2007/05/sun_goes_after_.html (more than half ways shows a website using javaFX)
this is a better link to see what its capable of. watch the movie - KCorax, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1this is great digging me down will make what I say wrong. Keep up the fine job ppl !
- KCorax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1omg look at the monkeywaffles link. What do we have to do to get antialias in Java apps, sacrifice our young to Schwartz or sth ?
- longboarder543, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1The Sun may respond to AJAX, but the Moon only responds to C++
- thebyte2005, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8My main question is: will you be able to embed JavaFX components into a webpage? If not, it will never be able to compete with Flash.
- KCorax, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9My question is, will it still look as ugly as applets do ? Cause if it does it will never be able to compete with Flash or Silverlight or
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is