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.
Related
One common hebavior I observed in my slow Internet connection is that most sites on the Web embedding Flash Video, their player is always written in Flex. I can tell by the extremely long loading scroll bar that Flex defaultly provides. From my experience Flash loads faster, Why do people stop writing stuff in Flash anymore?
Are there any fast loading yet rich feature Flash video players>
My experience is that the components provided by default in the Flex framework are more stable than the ones provided in the Flash IDE. So I'd prefer to use the Flex components simply because it means less time debugging problems in the actual component code. It is however true that players based on the Flex framework tend to be heavier in terms of download size. But since video is bandwidth heavy and people who watch video over the net tend to have good bandwidth these days, I guess the conclusions most developers come to is that the extra download size is an acceptable tradeoff for less time spent in coding boilerplate.
Personally, if the requirements state that the player has to load fast and be light weight then I always roll my own in pure AS3 and just implement exactly as much as is needed. But if there is no such requirement, then I'll use the Flex-components as a base and do customization from there.
As for the second part of your question, sorry can't think of any open source fast loading feature rich flash video players right now.
Flex produces a flash movie (swf), so the end result is still flash.
As for the reason behind it, not everybody has or wants Adobe Flash (Studio) or any of the other timeline based studios.
Flex enables anybody to create a flash based application or widget using XML and the free Flex SDK.
There may also aesthetic reasons such as standardised controls.
Try Flowplayer, JW FLV Media Player and the last contender, but not the least from Adobe - Strobe Media Playback http://www.osmf.org/strobe_mediaplayback.html
From my experience Flash loads faster, Why do people stop writing stuff in Flash anymore?
When done correctly, there's no difference in how they work - in fact, I'd argue that stuff done in Flex (specifically, using the Flex SDK) give you more freedom to control how loading is done.
But to answer the question, people stopped using Flash just because there's much better stuff out there. Flex Builder, FlashDevelop, FDT - they're all much better tools for any serious coding and debugging. I used to love the IDE, but now I can't fathom how would anyone do anything serious on it, even when using external code editors.
Flash still works when you need vectors, or to create a library with some embeddable assets, but that's pretty much all it's useful for nowadays.
I am a flex developer, see flex is somewhere flash, here flex has two frames, preloader stage(first frame) and creationComplete stage(second frame), the same frame concept as flash has, but flash has more than two frames and layer concept is also there
Major differneces comnes in the ease of using the components in flex, in flash, altho flash is one of powerful tools that has changes the web,
but flex gives the freedom, i m using flex, so i know that i can give more time on business login development, rather than concentrating on design aspects,
but it's also true, i have to see the design aspects as well in flex,
so happy flexing
I've recently started making a game in FlexBuilder. The game is currently a Flex project.
Is there any downside to using Flex as opposed to just Actionscript?
A friend of a friend told me that Flex is slower than an Actionscript project. I've been unable to validate this on the internet; is there any truth to that claim?
Thanks!
If you're developing a game, you should be using an ActionScript project. Flex is to be used only for data driven applications and user interfaces.
The flex compiler generates a lot of intermediate code to convert mxml files into actionscript (you can view those files if you compile with -keep compiler option). This code, the flex framework incorporated to your SWF, adds significantly to the size.
Create an actionscript project with a textfield ("hello world") and a flex project with a label with the same text. Build them, go to their bin-debug folders and compare the file sizes. While actionscript one is only a couple of kilobytes, flex swf would be at least a 100 kB.
As far as speed is concerned, since the flex framework is sitting on top of actionscript, it obviously would have a performance downside.
The beauty of flex lies in the easiness to create UI components and developing data driven applications that frequently communicates with the server.
Don't use it unless you truly need it.
If you know flex and it helps you developing faster - do it in flex.
Download size doesn't matter for game with a lot of assets. Most popular flash games have size of 5 MB and more. (for example on kongregate)
Crucial part of game you can make in pure actionscript. Placing hundreds UIComponents to Canvas could doesn't slow in Flex, but Flex rending technology prevent smooth animation of objects.
Conclusion:
Flex is for rapid development. You can use it's easy skinnable components for menu. Even without Flex UI components binding is matter and makes life easier.
Download size = speed on the Internet. The smaller you can make your game, the faster it will load. Size also equals speed in an interpreted language like ActionScript, where the less code you have to execute, the faster it will run. Hand-coding an ActionScript routine might let you make it faster than the generalist approach of Flex.
That said, maybe you'd be willing to pay that overhead to avoid having to write a lot of utility classes in pure ActionScript. Your high-score screen would be easier to do in Flex, for example, and that might be worth the overhead to you. It won't matter if your high-score screen is a little slower, since it isn't a real-time thing like the actual game.
Also consider the cost of your time. By using Flex, you'll be done with those parts of your app faster than if you hand-code them in ActionScript. Unless your time is free, you should be thinking about how this trades off against the bandwidth cost of the Flex overhead. It might be that it's cheaper to pay the bandwidth than your time making a more efficient program.
A Flex Application won't necessarily run slower than a Pure AS3 application once it's fully loaded - everything gets compiled down to bytecode in the end, and a Flex App is like an AS3 app that uses a LOT of other classes.
Think of the Flex Framework as a set of shortcuts that allow you to do things much more quickly, but the real cost is that your project gets filled up with a LOT more code - even if you're actually writing less code, and you never have to see the additional code.
I would disagree with the assertion that Flex should only ever be used for complex data-driven applications, though it's certainly very useful for such projects. You can use it for anything, as long as you understand that the final product (the .swf you export) is going to be a lot larger than it might otherwise be.
If having a large .swf is not that big a deal to you (and it might not be, depending on what you're doing with it) then I'd say give Flex a try because ArrayCollection, RemoteObject and Data-Binding will save you hours of frustration and hundreds of lines of code.
However, if you want to make sure your final app is as small and efficient as possible, do it in pure AS3 and simply opt-in to more advanced libraries as you need them.
Flex provides a framework for building Rich Internet Applications. If your game requires a complicated GUI (such as an RPG), it might be useful. Otherwise, it adds layers that will complicate things if all you want to do is build a game.
As said above in the first point the only beverage is memory consume. But if u write in pure AS script you need to be in deadline combat. As flex provide lots of customizable comps. U can use Class files instead of MX Comps that save the Memory. Do not Create any components unless it is being used. Modules and RSLs are avail to acheive the peretainity
I've tried looking everywhere for a concise list of the advantages and disadvantages of using Flex vs. Flash.
Coming from a programming background, I absolutely love Flex. It's easy to pick up, and since it can use flash classes, why would I want to use Flash without flex?
Flex:
Pros:
good for RIA development
provides many user-input options out of the box
Build in lay-outing system
the MXML is easier for non-programmers
You can quickly combine components to create small applications
components can provide an advantage in large-scale projects because of their modular
nature.
can be developed using linux
has a nice component lifecycle for validation, etc.
Cons:
increases the size of your .swf
Customizing the look of components can take a lot longer than anticipated, depending on the visual style you're looking for
when you find out you need a custom component that doesn't exist, you might need to go back to Flash to do the real programming work and packaging of the component
The "flexibility" of Flex means you will be reading a lot of documentation
Bugs in the Flex framework
You eventually will need to compromise with the architecture of the Flex framework
Flash
Pros:
good for making movies/animations
Timeline can be easier for designers/animators to conceptualize
when working from scratch, provides a great deal of control.
easier for someone with a programming background
You can program whatever you like; no compromises with existing frameworks
Cons:
only provides basic user input (text box) out of the box.
timeline can be daunting for programmers (although you can quite safely ignore it)
Development of certain types of applications will be slower than with Flex
can't be developed using linux
user input validation must all be handled in the code. No built-in validation.
need to implement your own lay-outing system
Please correct me if I missed anything said so far.
Flash and Flex both use the same underlying rendering engine, just with different front-ends. Flash is better suited for making movies and animations. Flex is better for application development.
From a programmer's viewpoint, the big difference between Flash and Flex is not so much which IDE/application you use for programming, but whether you program in ActionScript (AS) only, or use the Flex framework and MXML to program your applications.
I would say pure ActionScript is better for programming (whether you use Flash IDE or Flex IDE is not that relevant), and MXML is better for non-programmers to combine the components programmed in AS.
I would add to your list these pros/cons:
Flex:
Pros:
Easier for non-programmers to get into application development
You can quickly combine components to create small applications
Components can provide an advantage in large-scale projects
Cons:
Customizing the look of components can take a lot longer than anticipated, depending on the visual style you're looking for
When you find out you need a custom component that doesn't exist, you might need to go back to Flash to do the real programming work and packaging of the component
The "flexibility" of Flex means you will be reading a lot of documentation
Bugs in the Flex framework
You eventually will need to compromise with the architecture of the Flex framework
Flash (or Flex IDE in ActionScript project mode):
Pros:
Easier for someone with a programming background ;)
You can program whatever you like; no compromises with existing frameworks
Cons:
Timeline can be daunting for programmers (although you can quite safely ignore it)
Development of certain types of applications will be slower than with Flex
In short: pick the right tool for the right task.
Flex is a library of code written in ActionScript3, so it adds lots of capabilities and standard-library-like stuff to Flash. The downside is that it a is a huges amount code that gets included into your application. If you use any Flex at all in your app, the download size of the SWF goes up by 100's of K.
If your application has any kind of user interface widgets, then you almost have to use Flex as Flash itself only has the most basic things like text boxes. Flex has a whole XML GUI with layouts, data binding and XML setup etc.
Doing that in flash, you end up having to write from scratch things like list boxes...
In my opinion, the most important feature of the Flex framework is the component lifecycle, which provides a really elegant model for validation/invalidation of properties, component size, and hierarchical rendering.
The benefit to developers is that it creates discrete application phases for business logic and rendering, avoiding expensive geometry & rendering code until the last possible moment before drawing a frame.
Here's a really good presentation, explaining how it works:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f15384v1002
The model is so well-designed that the component lifecycle remains almost entirely invisible during the majority of Flex development, when you're using the framework default components and containers. You only need to learn the inner-workings when you start developing your own components.
Developing in the Flash environment, or in pure Actionscript, you don't get any of that. Anyone developing pure AS3 applications either needs to code very carefully to separate business logic from rendering, or will suffer severely decreased performance.
[...] why would I want to use Flash without flex?
Flex is a new product, whereas Flash existed from the Macromedia days. Designer, animators and most anybody who is not brought up on a staple diet of programming education will probably find Flash easier to master than most other such solutions.
Target is different.
Flex is more dedicated for programmer while Flash is more friendly to Artist / web designer.
Flash is the IDE used (generally) to create animations and things that work well on a timeline.
Flex works better for creating internet applications which have interactions more akin to a desktop.
Why use Flash? Well, if you need to do something more specifically attached to a timeline, of course!
I see Flex as more of a solution for doing RIA applications where you need to develop application based solutions. There's quite a lot you get right out of the box with using Flex but it also comes at a price in terms of file size, granularity, etc.
If on the other hand you are working on a totally custom solution such as a game then perhaps Flash is the way to go because you can start fresh with a blank canvas. Many people still use Flash because they don't need all the app based bells and whistles of the Flex platform.
I like the freedom of Flash, and its really simple to embed assets in Flash, a little more confusing to do in Flex.
One thing that I love about flex is the ability to make a fluid application with minimal effort. Which would take forever in Flash.
Anything you can do in flex you can do in flash, just may take a lot longer to do. You can't do everything in flex that you can do in flash though.
Flex takes care of all the UI programming for you and lets you focus on the business logic, with flash you will spend a majority of time programming the UI.
You can develop Flex applications under Linux easily but with Flash you simply can't.
Another solution that was not suggested at here, will be to use them both. You can add flex components to flash movie clips using ContainerMovieClip. And you can add flash movie clips to flex components using SpriteVisualElement. Another thing that wasn't mentioned was lay-outing your application. It will be flex pros against flash disadvantage, because you got build in flex lay-outing system. But again when you are using them both, you can layout your movie clips with flex lay-outing system.
Also flex become Apache top-level project. And it become more and more excepted by the community now.
Flash and Flex are 2 complete different things, one is a design tool with support for action script, the other one is a framework that also has action script but is maily built around MXML which is a XML based UI definition "Language".
I just got started using Adobe Flex SDK. I was very excited because it's the first time I've found a good, free way to create Flash applications. But then I noticed something: Flex doesn't seem to be much about making animations or designs. It seems more like an application to build forms and menus and the like... which I can already do in (D)HTML.
What features does Flex have that make it better than HTML in some cases?
Also, are there any techniques/software programs that would allow me to add the flash/design components that I mentioned earlier?
Thanks!
Flex, like Silverlight, is marketed for the creation of something called RIA = rich internet application. The idea being that (D)HTML isn't really well-suited to create large-scale, well-responding applications on the web. I'm not sure whether this is really (still) true but historically, it fits.
Flex and Silverlight attempt to correct this by providing two things: a different, extensible technology along with a large library and an adapted toolset for the creation of applications. The disadvantage in both cases is the dependency from further (non-free, non-standard) components. The advantage is a potentially much more productive workflow and better performance.
Flex has a cohesive component model, and the basic building blocks were designed to support applications. HTML, on the other hand was designed for displaying text, and the DOM is a sorry excuse for a component model -- and it was most definitely not designed with applications in mind.
There is a plethora of JavaScript libraries that try to implement a workable platform on top of the DOM, and to even out the differences between browsers. While these work fine in many situations most of them don't come near the richness of the Flex component model, or even the more basic Flash API:s.
However impressing libraries like Dojo, YUI and jQuery are, they are limited by the platform, and it is limited indeed. Flex has all the benefits of the Flash Player platform, like vector graphics, remote objects, video support, cross-domain loading, sockets, font embedding, etc. but also a very good component model, data binding and skinning capabilities, to name but a few. If you're writing rich internet applications Flex is as rich as it gets.
Flex is a layer on top of Flash, and was designed from the ground up for building applications. As such it has very powerful capabilities when it comes to interface construction and data manipulation. If you are interested in movies and animation sticking with Flash is more appropriate.
The advantages of Flex over DHTML (AJAX) include:
- Faster prototyping
- Better cross-browser support
- Better support for data management
- More "serious"
Disadvantages include:
- Stuck with a single vendor
- Requires the Flash plugin
You can do audio and video in Flex/Flash vs DHTML.
Some more details and comparisons are in this The Top 10 Things You Should Know About Flex article.
If you're interested in leveraging the graphics potential of Flex, why not go check out Degrafa which is an open source graphing and general graphics api. It's pretty cool, very well documented, and quote - "Adobe has asked if the Degrafa team would consider helping directly contribute to the Flex Graphics open source effort." - which they are!
It's not just all about charts and graphs.
Just a quick clarification - to be clear, Flex is built on top of Flash. What that means is that anything you can do in Flash, you can do in Flex when it comes to programming. Flex Builder does not come with any tools that let you make animations with timelines or vector art or anything like that, but all of those elements are still usable provided you have the tools to make them elsewhere.
Flex is really about bridging Actionscript 3 as a language and Flash as a runtime into an environment where application programmers can feel truly comfortable with it.
As stated above, "Better cross-browser support." That's probably the biggest factor right now for me.
A few more...
It's a lot easier to get "pixel perfect" designs in place.
It's really easy to integrate Flash content into Flex. Which makes it easier to work with designers.
Actionscript is better than Javascript (go ahead and flame me!)
There aren't any really good alternatives to buying the Flash product for making timeline based animations.
The bad sides:
Sometimes, html is just plain easier / more powerful
Make sure to pick the right tool for the right job. Sometimes DHTML, sometimes Flex, sometimes Flash, and many times a combination of those.
What you're talking about is Flash versus Javascript. Flex is Flash, DHTML is Javascript.
Flex allows for rapid prototyping, an alternate IDE for building Flash .swf s, and fits nicely into Air - Javascript only runs in browsers, includes less animation support by default (although there are plenty of well-established libraries that provide that functionality) and doesn't require a plugin to work.
Also with Flex you don't have to deal with JSON, XMLHttpRequest, compatibility issues and the likes... Everything works like magic.
Unless you need a lot of animations, HTML will feel more lightweight than Flex.
No "loading" screen.
On OS X performance of Flex is abysmal. Even DHTML animations are faster! (see GUIMark).
HTML has wider compatibility than Flex. It may not be as easy as writing for single implementation from single vendor, but OTOH you're not limited to that single implementation:
No problems with iPhone or 64-bit Linux.
With graceful degradation basic functionality might even be accessible from Lynx or BlackBerry browser.
HTML is better integrated with the browser and OS:
Form elements can have native look'n'feel.
Text has preferred type of anti-aliasing, no problems with ClearType.
Keyboard shortcuts, context menus and text selection work as expected.
Browser extensions can improve DHTML apps, but Flex is impenetrable.
Accessibility tools have better support for HTML.
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.