I have started working on javafx . I wanted to know the difference between javafx and Tornadofx . How they are inter-related and different from each other.
Also when to use what.
Are there any cases where javafx is more useful/advised to use than Tornadofx or vice-versa?
JavaFX is more like a toolkit (it has all the foundation needed for building a GUI). It is a feature-complete "toolkit", but it is very verbose, and the syntax contains boilerplate code, which makes it hard to maintain. That's where TornadoFX comes in. TornadoFX is like a framework based on that toolkit, which does away with all the boilerplate code, and makes the GUI building declarative, to the point that it resembles HTML.
Also, even though TornadoFX can be used from Java, it is meant to be used from Kotlin (JavaFX can be used from Kotlin also, without any issues).
TornadoFX simplifies and streamlines the GUI building process (makes the code cleaner), but it uses JavaFX "under the hood", and as such, is interoperable with JavaFX.
For example, you can create a widget in pure JavaFX code, and then use it within TornadoFX, or, for example, create a whole window in TornadoFX, and then call it from JavaFX.
The main takeaway here is that TornadoFX doesn't restrict JavaFX in any way, and you can still reach low-level JavaFX stuff from TornadoFX.
Besides just the GUI builders, TornadoFX also contains useful tools like the ViewModel classes, which separate the GUI and logic (which is available, but not mandatory in any way), and some other useful tools.
Personally, I'd always use TornadoFX, because it makes the code very concise and easily-maintainable, while, at the same time, no features of JavaFX are lost.
Currently accepted answer didn't answer this part
Are there any cases where javafx is more useful/advised to use than
Tornadofx
The point of the accepted answer is that for standard simple GUIs Kotlin combined with TornadoFX will get you up an running quick. This is true.
Some examples where straight JavaFX is better:
JavaFX 3D subscenes
interops with Swing (I'm not sure how you would even use Kotlin here, but maybe TornadoFX by itself would work)
Canvas based renders
High Performance custom Event processing
Clearly these are scenarios that do not represent the majority of GUI apps, rather high performance and custom render type applications. So generally speaking if you are starting from scratch... ie... you aren't already well versed in JavaFX, then using TornadoFX is a good starting point.
On that note opting to use Kotlin as a starting point is interesting as well. I personally don't find it that advantageous over just writing in JavaFX, but I have a lot of experience with JavaFX so I might be biased. Also while you are not forced to do so... it is painful to develop in kotlin without intelliJ which is all part of that company's plan for making Kotlin in the first place.
All that said:
and the syntax contains boilerplate code
This is true to an extent and Tornado does reduce the boilerplate a bit by forcing you to go through a standardized set of APIs.
But...
which makes it hard to maintain.
I disagree. It is not "hard" to maintain. It's code you copy/paste one time and likely never changed again. We should not be rushing so fast to obscure and encapsulate every last ASCII character from our code bases in the name of "maintainability" while shooting a torpedo into the side of our performance.
Related
Every time I start a project with some graphical toolkit, one of the first conflicts happen with the decision of how to deal with the visual design and the widget layout: A graphical tool or handcoding?
This is a quite tricky/subjective question because most people will decide based on personal preference. It also depends greatly on the quality of the graphical tool. In this case I would like to focus just on the latest version of the QT library. I do not intend to discuss which method is better. I am convinced that the best answer is: depends on the project.
What I want is a reference to a good non biased article, based on experience after several projects. The article should just describe the tradeoffs of both choices
I started with doing everything hand-coded, and of late have been switching to using Qt Designer for most forms. Here are some benefits for each position:
Using Qt Designer
The biggest time saver for me is managing complex layouts; it saves a lot of tedious coding. Simply (very roughly) arrange your widgets, select them, right-click, and put them in the correct type of layout. Especially as layouts become nested, this is so much easier.
It tends to keep your implementation files cleaner instead of filling them with all the boilerplate layout code. I'm type-A, so I like that.
If you are translating your application, it is possible to send your translators the .ui files so they can see on your GUI where the text they are translating will be. (Assuming they are using Qt Linguist.)
Hand-coding
Control. If you have a layout where you need to instantiate / initialize the controls in a very particular order, or dynamically create the controls based on other criteria (database lookup, etc.), this is the easiest way.
If you have custom widgets, you can kind-of-sort-of use the Designer, adding the closest built-in QWidget from which your class derived and then "upgrading" it. But you won't see a preview of your widget unless you make it a designer plugin in a separate project, which is way too much work for most use cases.
If you have custom widgets that take parameters in their constructor beyond the optional QWidget parent, Designer can't handle it. You have no choice but to add that control manually.
Miscellaneous
I don't use the auto-connect SLOTS and SIGNALS feature (based on naming convention such as "on_my_button_clicked".) I have found that I almost invariably have to set up this connection at a determinate time, not whenever Qt does it for me.
For QWizard forms, I have found that I need to use a different UI file for each page. You can do it all in one, but it becomes very awkward to communicate between pages in any kind of custom way.
In summary, I start with Qt Designer and let it take me as far as it can, then hand-code it from there. That's one nice thing about what Qt Designer generates--it is just another class that becomes a member of your class, and you can access it and manipulate it as you need.
My answer is based on two years developing biochemistry applications using PyQt4 (Python bindings to Qt 4) and OpenGL. I have not done C++ Qt, because we only used C++ for performance-critical algorithms. That said, the PyQt4 API greatly resembles Qt4, so much here still applies.
Qt Designer
Good
Exploration. Discover what widgets are available, the names for those widgets, what properties you can set for each, etc.
Enforces separation of UI logic from application logic.
Bad
If you need to add or remove widgets at run-time, you have to have that logic in code. I think it's a bad idea to put your UI logic in two places.
Making changes to nested layouts. When a layout has no widgets in it, it collapses, and it can be really hard to drag and drop a widget in to the location you want.
Hand coding
Good
Fast if you are very familiar with Qt.
Best choice if you need to add or remove widgets at run-time.
Easier than Qt Designer if you have your own custom widgets.
With discipline, you can still separate UI layout from behavior. Just put your code to create and layout widgets in one place, and your code to set signals and slots in another place.
Bad
Slow if you are new to Qt.
Does not enforce separation of layout from behavior.
Tips
Don't just jump into creating your windows. Start by quickly sketching several possible designs, either on paper or using a tool like Balsamiq Mockups. Though you could do this in Qt Designer, I think it is too tempting to spend a lot of time trying to get your windows to look just right before you've even decided if it is the best design.
If you use Qt Designer for PyQt, you have the extra step of running pyuic4 to compile your *.ui files to Python source files. I found it easy to forget this step and scratch my head for a second why my changes didn't work.
If you code your UI by hand, I suggest putting your layout code in one place and your signals and slots in another place. Doing this makes it easier to change the way your widgets are arranged on a window without affecting any of your application logic. Or you can change some behavior without having to wade through all the layout code.
Enjoy Qt! Now that I am using Java Swing for work, I miss it.
I tend to layout dialogs using the designer but I do all the event handling stuff in the main code. I also do all the main windows, toolbars, menus in direct code.
The designer is just frustrating - a pity since decent drag and drop sizer based designers have been around for more than a decade
It depends on the number of different windows/panels you need for your application. If the number is small, use a graphical tool. It is much faster to get a few windows designed perfectly. If the number is large, the graphical tool can (and should) only be used for prototypes. You need to code the layout to be able to make application-wide changes at acceptable cost.
That includes creating a model of how the UI of the application works and dynamically adding and removing widgets at runtime. For an excellent example of such a model (in a different environment), take a look at the glamour model for creating object browsers.
I object to the suggestion that it is tricky/subjective (at least more than other development choices). It is easy to come up with criteria to decide on. Personal experience and preference are important for that, as they decide when the number of different windows should be considered small. The same goes for tool quality.
My personal opinion (just personal), all GUI based development distracts me too much, my imagination or my mind works very bad when i'm seeing gui objects, i prefer to hand-coding most the time because my imagination works better, you know, is like you were reading a book with no images... when i see nothing else than code its looks like i finish faster...
Second reason, i like c++ so much, so I see the good side of hand-coding, is that I keep my c++ practice no matter if I'm writing something redundant... Coding skill is improved when you only use text... Indeed, i could use nano or vim, but that is too far slow for debuging.
Hand-coding here ++vote
I use a combination of both:
I find for x,y coordinates, Designer is the way to go.
A lot of the other UI properties etc can be set in your code.
I think trying to do UI completely by hand-coding would be a very time consuming project. It's not as simple as setting up HTML tables.
Yes version 4 is bad, but people at work who have used version 3 said it was REALLY bad. Lots of crashing.
I, along with my fellow QTers, are truly hoping that version 5 will be an improvement.
I know this is an old question, but I hope this helps! One man's experience.
I have used Flex for about a year before deciding that I would rather develop Actionscript projects.
At the time, it seemed that the framework was too heavy for the kind of work I was dealing with, mainly small web applications , personal sites, portfolios this sort of thing. I also thought that Flex was like a odd hybrid , something targeting seasoned developers but at the same time , adding some function wizards that seemed to target beginners. It seemed overly complexed in some areas and way too basic in others.
On the other hand, the IDE was great , definitely no comparison with Flash CS IDE , so for me it made sense to stick to AS3 projects and use Flex , now FlashBuilder to write my code.
( I need to point out that I'm not a Flash designer, so working with Flash CS was never an option. )
It's been a while since I had a look at the Flex framework and I'm wondering about other Flex/Flash developers position on this issue.
Would you only consider Flex for enterprise level projects? What are the advantages of using one over the other? If you were a Flash developer and moved to Flex, what were your motivations? If you're creating both Flex & Actionscript projects , what are your choice criteria?
Edit:
Although I have received a great answer, I would have been interested to hear from Flex's users, what's your main practical motivation ( as opposed to philosophical :) ) for using Flex over pure Actionscript projects?
Preamble: my experience is primarily with AS3 projects built using a combination of the Flash IDE (FIDE) and Flash Builder 4 (FB4).
I generally prefer pure AS3 (PAS3) projects over Flex projects for the following reasons:
Size - Flex projects have a much larger minimum size than PAS3 projects. Not suitable for lightweight applications.
Performance - Flash is not known for its performance, and the layout computations required by a complex Flex application will hammer the end-user's machine. To them, things just end-up feeling slow, non-responsive, or "gunky". Unfortunately, this means that the applications where Flex might be most attractive (i.e. a very complex, adaptable, UI) are the exact places where it stumbles. In the end, you end up writing all this bizarre performance-enhancing optimization code that takes away most of the time you gained from using the built-in layout system.
Metaphor and Appearance - Flex aims to allow developers to provide end-users with a mature, flexible UI that has the same widgets and widget behaviors that they are used to from native applications. However, due to the performance problems echoed above, the UI never feels quite as nice or responsive as a native app. In addition, it's missing all of the OS-specific peculiarities that end-users are used to and will expect. I don't really understand the motivation to try to emulate native app development or behavior - you're never going to win that fight. Best to make something that stands by itself, which is what most native web applications are doing.
Flexibility - Dovetailing into the previous argument, Flash's main advantage is its ability to do things that traditional UI widget libraries can't do (at least not very easily). You can make some really, really novel UIs in Flash that just aren't practical to do in native apps without mucking about in OpenGL. Using Flex makes creating novel UI hard again (but it does make creating standard UI much easier, even if it is, in my opinion, sub-standard UI).
I'm curious if anyone has some good examples of Flex being used in any popular, public websites. Grooveshark is the only one that I know about (which is quite nice, but suffers from many of the problems I've outlined, especially on OS X where Flash performance is still poor).
However - it's a tradeoff. Always remember that your time is valuable. Your users might accept a slightly clunky, slightly confusing interface if it lets them do really cool things and that would mean that you could release it now as opposed to later. This brings is to the major downsides of PAS3 development:
Effort vs. Reward - You have to program all of your own UI. All of it. This can lead to some really, really bloated code where you have to define tons of event listeners for every button you want to create. I don't know how many times I've written various kinds of layout code specific to what I was working on. You can try to write your own abstract classes for these (which I have done), but at some point you're just going to end up re-implementing the Flex framework. Hardly worth your time.
Development - You can either use just Flash Builder 4, in which case you have to construct every graphical asset by hand in code (which takes forever), or you use the FIDE, in which case you can make lovely artwork but you're stuck with a stone-age code IDE and it takes forrrrrreeeeeeevvvvver to compile anything. Currently I use a hybrid setup where art generated in the FIDE is automatically imported into my FB4 project, but even that is not a perfect solution. They really need to be integrated better.
Another set of things to keep in mind: things that Flash sucks at.
Flash sucks at text. Do not try to re-implement a web browser inside Flash. Flash is actually quite good at displayed relatively small amounts of text that is unselectable (and, through the use of embedded fonts, is always pixel-perfect), but don't try to create large, expansive text documents inside your Flash project. First, performance will be terrible, and second, users will expect the text to behave the same way all other large text fields do in their native applications (most specifically, their web browser). Selecting text in Flash doesn't feel right because it doesn't feel how your OS does it.
Flash doesn't play nice with mouse and keyboard input - it constantly fights with the enclosing browser for focus. If your system needs either of those things, users need to click on it first. Don't fall into a trap where people will get confused because their inputs are going to the wrong place.
Flash is a performance hog - we've all heard this one, and it's not nearly as much of a problem as people like to think, but it does mean that you'll have to put a lot of thought into the performance of your system. Your UI should run at a stable 60FPS when being used and should not use much if any CPU when the user is not interacting with it. If your FPS dips below 60, then your UI will feel slow and gunky compared to native or HTML5 UI. Also make sure to watch for memory leaks.
In the end: user your head. Both approaches are just tools in your arsenal.
I'm familiar with most of the Flash vs. Flex comparisons out there and most of them present some version of "Flex is better for RIA's while Flash is better for design work".
Yet isn't it entirely possible to write elaborate RIA's using the URLLoader class + server side code? In this regard, I'm unclear as to what Flex offers aside from a set of handy user controls.
The reason I ask is that I'm starting a fairly complex Flash piece that needs to take a lot of round-trips to the DB. I'm hoping to avoid introducing a new framework into the equation but don't want to get bit by performance, scaling issues down the road.
Thanks.
T
If all you need above basic Flash is to make HTTP requests to get data from the server, by all means, go ahead and use URLLoader.
Use Flex when:
You do want that nice GUI library. (This can be as simple as a desire to use Flex's automatic layout facilities, like VBoxes.)
You want to compile your app from the command line, like traditional software. (This is independent of the Flex framework. The Flex SDK build tools can also build plain old AS3 projects.)
You want to build your application in a traditional software development IDE, Flex/Flash Builder, rather than the graphics and animation centric Flash Professional environment.
Your UI is better declared in MXML than built graphically in Flash Professional.
Yes, I guess it would be possible to write RIAs using the URLLoader class + server side code - but Flex makes it easier to write them.
[Bindable]
I believe one of the major features that makes RIA development easier with Flex is data binding.
For example, you can easily assign httpservice.lastResult to the dataProvider of a DataGrid and forget about it. In Flash, you need to manually parse each time complete event is fired and recreate the dataProvider - while this might sometimes be efficient in terms of performance and memory management (provided we design it well), it takes some effort as compared to Flex's way of doing it with a one-liner.
Classes like XMLListCollection and ArrayCollection also makes things easier with flex.
Flash is meant for presentation/visual/pretty stuff. Flex is meant for data.
I beg to differ!
With the Flex SDK you can develop "pure" AS3 code that would do and look the exact same way that something you'd do with the Flash IDE.
Flex is an AS3 framework made for developing RIA's but first of all it's an AS3 framework.
Lots of Flex developers were using Flash before Flex/FlexBuilder came out. I just think that if you're into "pure" development and don't need all of the Flash IDE's drawing tools, you'll feel much more confortable with a text editor and the flex sdk.
I use URLLoader in my flex code sometimes, and other times I use RemoteObject or HTTPService, I don't think there's any rule for that.
If you're going to be making a lot of round trips to the DB, I think it would be a good idea to consider Flex since you'll be able to use the faster and less verbose AMF protocol rather than HTTP/RESTful protocols, which are generally slow and 'heavyweight.'
Flex provides a pretty decent set of UI controls, which saves enormous time when dealing with large amounts of data. Have you ever built a control in Flash? It's tough to do right and bug free. So that's the #1 reason.
Also Flex, and especially Flash Builder 4, have features existing and upcoming that better interface with data sources of all types..
Flash is meant for presentation/visual/pretty stuff. Flex is meant for data.
I just started making games and I decided for my next project to use either flashdevelop or flex builder. Reason being is because you can embed just about everything and for licensing purposes and it recommended the the game is compiled into one file. flex sdk is good with that type of stuff.
As of right now I decided to use flashdevelop. but recently it's been kicking my behind. First I wasnt able to use ui class (e.i. buttons, and textboxes) probably because of something stupid I did. Now for some reason I can not compile my applications. When I compile, nothing happens, no errors, no nothing. below is a screenshot of what happens when I compile.
Yes i installed debugger and yes I installed sdk
So now I was thinking about just going with flex builder. Not sure which one is more easier to assemble and use. But I do know the flex builder community is bigger, and they have a much better documentation. I am good with actionscript, but I am not so good with using flex.
My ultimate question is...
Which one is easier to assemble
which one is easier to use
which one is BETTER overall
as far as not compiling goes, looks like it compiled just fine.
I don't know what you're expecting to see from the code other than the "Hello"
to see that open up your output window (under View)
Whether you use flex or flashdevelop, you end up using the same compiler.
Like Adam, I find flashdevelop easier to use than flex, but that's because I've used it more (flex trial expired and FD didn't)
And plus I'm fast with FD, like really fast :)
Try some of the shortcuts:
to create getter and setter or
generate function press 'ctrl shift ~' and PRESTO
or for a for loop or for each loop type in the first few
letters and press 'ctrl B'
to find instances of any string in code you
can do F3 and shift F3, whereas F4
will find the object or function
declaration(even in separate files)
FD also adds a lot of the classes as
needed (sometimes I have to do it manually)
and the latest version lets
you generate classes which extend
another class easier.
I'm sure that flax does most of this as-well, but when you're already used to this then switching slows you down.
I had the same issues when I started working with FD. What it boils down to is that flex has a bunch of libraries that it's using that FD doesn't unless you link to them, and sometimes even then.
But once you start compiling your libraries and assets into SWCs you will be able to compile them through Flash and Flex. Which can be handy (like when you're working with other developers)
FD doesn't have a profiler, but this has not prompted me to stop using it. When I need some debugging and trace isn't enough I add the demonsters debugger class: http://www.monsterdebugger.com/ it's pretty powerful, but you still can't step through your code.
** Update - Flash Develop has had a profiler for a few versions now, It's good for watching memory use, but I still end up using monster debugger a lot. You can use debug in Flash Develop as-well and step through your code.**
FD doesn't have the UI that flex does, and for developing mxml it is a bit more tedious, but at pure as3, I find FD is all I need. Well than and Flash to create my SWCs
I think a lot of it is personal preference, and what you have previously used. Some people do have strong opinions though.
Personally I like FlashDevelop, but only because I am use to it, and can get things done a lot faster e.g. setting up projects, workflow, shortcuts etc. But I am sure If I forced myself to only use FlashBuilder (formally FlexBuilder) that I would soon come to grips with its nuances.
Here are a few of my points for either side:
FlashDevelop:
I like how FlashDevelop is so simple,
where as Flash Builder is rather
bulky.
FlashDevelop is totally free, where Flash Builder actually cost quite a bit.
Flash Builder:
Built on Eclipse, so has a massive community, tons of plug-ins etc.
Source control intergrated into the IDE (very important in large projects).
Also might want to check out this article on ActionScript Editors.
I know it's an old topic, but in case someone finds it, here is an interesting thing I've noticed:
I am using pixel fonts in my project, and by default Flash Player blurs part of it (it is a known problem). One solution is to use a bitmap text (some kind of custom class) and the other is to use Text Renderer with some of its related elements to force Flash to render the font correctly. When compiling under the same version of Flex SDK in Flash Builder 4+ the font rendered correctly. But when I compiled with Flash Develop (latest version) the text was really ugly, with missing pixels at random places. It might be caused by the fact that Flash Develop or Flash Builder are sending some hidden arguments to the compiler which either make it work/break.
This is a long running question that has been repeated a few times. Review this question and see if it answers yours.
Web-based Game Development: Flex Builder or Flash CS3?
I currently do a lot of work in ActionScript 3.0, I also love to program in Java. Is JavaFX perfect for me? What is the general feeling on JavaFX, will it become a power house, or go down the same path as Java Applets? Could the designers I work with become comfortable with JavaFX to the same extent they are comfortable with ActionScript and JavaScript?
Just wanted to add my $.02... I've been working in JavaFX for the last 4 days on my first little side-project using it. As some background, I've been programming professionally for about 9 years, starting with C, and have been doing Java and C#/.NET for the last 6 yrs.
IMO, JavaFX its way more frustrating that it should be. Here are some gripes:
The syntax is just odd at times. It could easily be more like Java, since its JavaFX. But the syntax isn't an easy transition from Java.
The order of items in a .fx file actually matters, which means you run into stupid circular reference errors, and "oh you can't use this variable yet because it hasn't been initialized" problems that the compiler should handle with ease, but doesn't.
Random things just don't work. Actions/events on Swing controls don't always work, for example SwingSliderBar's onKeyPressed/released don't seem to be called.
Error handling is just bad. If an exception occurs that isn't handled, there is no real way to tell other than the Java console, and UI elements start to react funny. For example, make a SwingText box and bind its value to a variable. Now trying to edit the value in the text box will throw an exception because you cant edit the bound variable. However in the UI, the text box just starts having funny things happen. some characters only 1/2 paint, sometimes backspace does nothing, sometimes it deletes a character, sometimes you can press 2 keys ont eh keyboard like "1" and "2" and the text box will end up having "21" entered in it instead of "12", etc...
Although my absolute #1 problem with JavaFX development right now is Netbeans. It is pathetically bad at JFX. Can't debug, errors display wrong in the IDE (I've had it flag comments as errors!), the intellisence only works like 40% of the time, event he code templates preprogrammed in the IDE for drag & dropping controls aren't correct. I forget which one, but one of them drops a "&" at the end of the inserted code that is never valid and always has to be manually deleted... its just plain awful, and is unacceptable for a company like Sun.
Another gripe is general documentation. Its just lacking. Somehow the JavaFX API doesn't even come up as the #1 search result on google when searching for methods/classes. Tons of "examples" out on the web don't work any more as every version has major refactoring changes, and classes removed or renamed.
Overall, I give JFX a 4 out of 10. I want to like it, but JFX 1.1 just doesn't cut it... its definitely not what I would consider "production ready".
A resounding "meh".
When I looked at it a year ago, they had a one-way SVG to JavaFx conversion tool. Great, so you can author your visual content once, mark it up with a lot of behaviour, and then the next time you want to make it look good, then what?
If you take a look at this tutorial you can see what I mean. We're drawing stuff by dragging shapes from a palette into source code. OMGWTF. I am not showing that to my graphics department.
I hope I'm wrong about JavaFx, but I don't think they get it. Please, won't somebody at Sun give us a presentation layer that doesn't have its tentacles inextricably intertwined with code?
I left my last job to move from Java to .NET development.
There were a number of reasons for making the move, but the single biggest reason was that I was sick and tired of trying to build 1st class UI software with Java & Swing. It has been six years and I'm so glad I moved on. I see no reason to believe that Sun finally understands UI development with JavaFX.
I am convinced that Microsoft is finally in the process of giving us a platform to build rich interactive applications in the browser. I say that after having built commercially available software which was delivered as a Netscape Plugin 13 years ago, followed by ActiveX controls and Java Applets, and seeing all of these platforms fail to become ubiquitous in the enterprise for one reason or another.
I realize that Silverlight 2 is still lacking in depth and maturity, but Microsoft has shown me enough commitment at this point that I believe it will be the dominant RIA platform in a few short years - at least for projects which require a "real" programming language. I am sure Flash et al. is not going away anytime soon, but Flash is not appropriate for the kinds of software my company builds.
The icing on the cake for me is the fact that I will still be able to use Visual Studio, C# and a large percentage of my current code base (the core engine which is entirely separate from the UI). Of course, if you are coming from ActionScript, this would not help you.
One more important point is the fact that Silverlight and WPF share so much in common. Our plan is to share a large amount of implementation between Silverlight and WPF versions of our software. It is only a matter of time before WPF is the standard for Windows applications – I don’t know whether that is a couple of years or ten years, but it will clearly happen over time. Being able to target the most popular browsers / OS’s with Silverlight and Windows from the same code base is a tremendous advantage IMO.
If you know Java then moving to C# is a piece of cake. And unless you are using one of the nice (not free) Java IDEs, then even the free versions of Visual Studio will be an improvement over what you are used to. The hurdle will be learning the new way of doing things with XAML – but it’s some pretty cool stuff so you might actually enjoy it.
Although it appears fairly powerful in terms of capabilities, I'm kinda blah about JavaFX because of its structure and implementation. It seems like a really half-hearted attempt at getting into the Flash/Silverlight market. Too scripty.
I would argue in favor of going the Silverlight 2 route, but I'm primarily a C# developer so I'm a little biased there. If you don't like that route for whatever reason but still want a richer UX for your users, I'd suggest Flex; it seems much better organized than JavaFX to me.
Just my two cents on the subject.
If you know Java but want to do the stuff you thought was only feasible in Flash - then yes JavaFX would be good for you.
Without a doubt it's going to be much more easier to merge your Java knowledge with the design stuff.
And I believe the tooling will only get better which will make it simpler to use.
Unless you’re working on an internal app I would stay away from it. Users generally don’t want to have to deal with another program that accomplishes the same thing as Flash. I don’t think its install base is large enough yet to make it convenient for end users.
I've been developing Flash Applications with Flex for about 2 years now and I decided to give a try to JavaFX because we are constantly getting user complains that they cant use the applications from their IPhones (and I love Java).
That's one strike for Flash (no wide mobile support).
To be honest I was quite impressed with JavaFX (in a very bad way).
The documentation is incomplete.
The script is simply awful; its this weird hybrid between JSON and R with a feeling of a Java-deja-vu.
I spent the first 3 days painting polygons and making gradients with CODE... WTF!!
I tried to convince my graphic department to try it and they simply don't seam to grasp how the production suite is supposed to work, they keep complaining that Flex skinning is way easy and looks better in the end (Which is absolutely true).
The "CSS support" is simply a bad joke.
It generally feels like a mediocre attempt to offer an option for RIA frontend.
I can only think of a couple of good things about it:
It can be run from an IPhone / IPad and almost all mobile devices.
You have access to all the Java code you want which is great considering the limitations that ActionScript has (no overloading, no private constructors, etc). This is a great thing for us the programmers, but lets remember for a second that this is a frontend/presentation technology... that means that users will have to actually see the thing, so if it doesn't look good and have cool animations / effects they wont dig it.
The Script is way less verbose that MXML files are (with the cost of being unintelligible).
Talking about performance... Flash Player is this huge green blob that keeps growing and growing until no RAM is left compared to how JavaFX runs (JVM rocks! unfortunately this has nothing to do with the actual JavaFX API its just that the JVM... well it rocks!).
It has this cool feature where you can drag the applet outside the Web Browser.
In the end, Im happy I have an option to go mobile but this is light years way of the matureness that Flex/Flash has accomplished regarding RIA applications. The future of Flex/Flash as a wide distributed web technology is not clear (it may end up being used only for annoying banners and online games), no one wants to depend in a close technology as the Flash Player is, that's why the whole Web community is striving to get Flash out of the picture (HTML5 video support, No Flash Player for Apple devices, etc). So an attempt to have an open one is always welcomed, it's just that JavaFX feels like this incomplete rushed beta version of something that Sun felt obligated to come up with in a weekend during a bad hangover.
I Hope this is useful to someone (and offensive to someone at Sun/Oracle =p ).
I've spent the weekend 'playing with it. I see nothing useful in it. It's a iteration of swing / awt. I guess it will be nice for mobile devices but beyond that its nothing useful.
Ideally I'd like to use flash but find it painful to intergrate with a backend of any type.
Well, the syntax of both ActionScript and JavaFX seem to share a lot of similarities, so maybe "Yes".
I'm learning JavaFX script at the moment and I actually like it. But what I don't like, and is maybe it's biggest drawback, is it's awful documentation, which is often not up to date or incomplete.
I've been working on a JavaFX application for several months now. Personally, I love the language. They seemed to me to have made some very smart decisions in choosing the syntax and language constructs (I can bore you with a list if you'd like). I've been programming in it for a few months now and it seems like a very efficient and even enjoyable language to program in.
I think its best use right now is for desktop applications and/or applications deployed through webstart. On the desktop it has a rich set of features and can still make use of the other features of Swing and the rest of Java. From what I hear applets are still slow on some systems, and without Android support the mobile capabilities are non-features. The applet/mobile/TV/web support seems to me more like a bonus for desktop developers then as key features that would get you to use the technology.
So it really all depends on what you plan to use it for. If you are building desktop applications that you want to run on the Java VM that can make use of easy multimedia and rich ui controls, then I think there are good reasons to look at the language. WebStart has improved quite a bit and makes for a nice deployment tool. If you are looking to build web applications, then it might be interesting, but for now I'd say HTML5/ajax are more relevant (you might want to look at ZK in this case). However even with HTML5 ajax has its limitations, and if you find yourself running into them then JavaFX may offer you options. For mobile platforms it won't be relevant until there is stable Android support - in that case I'd just stick with the Android platform itself for now.