I am completely new to Flex.
Can I realistically develop, say, a medium complex application with the Flex SDK alone, or do I need Flex Builder?
Also, apart from the SDK, what will I need to get started?
Thanks for any help.
I was there a year or two ago, so here's my experience. In order by subquestion:
I am completely new to Flex.
I was new to Flex too - and Actionscript (although it's a superset of javascript, which I know pretty well; although it sure doesn't feel like javascript to me).
Can I realistically develop, say a medium complex application with the Flex SDK alone, or do I need Flex Builder?
Maybe, if you already know Flash and Actionscript pretty well. I didn't, so I found it sure helped. But it isn't any different from any other IDE-or-not decision.
Also, apart from the SDK, what will I need to get started?
Nothing, unless you want to use AIR, which is only a simple download. Everything else is in there. I was completely happy with my experience; no unpleasant surprises, and you're asking the same questions I did. YMMV.
You don't need it, but it can be helpful.
I've found FlashDevelop to be a much better IDE for coding ActionScript. It ties in with the (free) Flex SDK, so as long as you don't mind coding the MXML by hand then it should work great. I've created a number of smaller Flex apps using this, and it's worked great. I generally shy away from graphical GUI designers anyway, so it worked quite well for me.
FlexBuilder gets you two things that (afaik) you can't get elsewhere. A visual designer for the MXML, and a debugger. If you get the more expensive version of Flex Builder you also get a profiler.
The visual designer is good if you want to quickly prototype something, or if you're used to designing UI stuff that way (and I can see where it would be helpful once you start getting into more complex UI stuff).
The Flex SDK comes with a command line debug tool, but the GUI you get with FlexBuilder makes using it a lot easier. This is what made getting FlexBuilder worth it for me. I generally don't use FlexBuilder for everyday development, but when I need to debug it makes things much easier.
If you're the one who would have to pay for FlexBuilder, try it without FlexBuilder. If you start running into a situation where you feel having the graphical designer or debugger GUI would be helpful, grab the FlexBuilder trial. You'll have 30 days to try it out. If it helps you enough that you think it's worth the cost, then buy it. If you're getting along fine without it then you don't have to worry about getting it.
If your employer would be purchasing it and has the budget for it then it might be worth getting it sooner, but you could probably do the same thing I mentioned above so as to possibly save your company some money.
You don't need FlexBuilder to develop Flex applications, I use:
Flex SDK
Editor of your choice ( I use emacs on Linux, Notepad++ handles ActionScript well in Windows)
Ant (Flex SDK comes with Ant tasks)
I wrote a entire blog post on how to set up a Flex development environment:
http://blog.apterainc.com/software/setting-up-a-flex-development-enviroment-in-gnulinux/
While I blogged about setting this environment up in Linux, most of the steps can be directly transferred to a windows environment.
As to the other posters: Developing GUI components in Flex is no different or harder then using HTML to design a webpage. If you require a WYSIWYG editor for that, then you do not know Flex or HTML well enough.
FlexBuilder has been well worth the investment for me personally; it's probably paid for itself tenfold or more. No, far more. Easily.
A few key fetures I've most enjoyed:
Intellisense/code-hinting: Especially if you're new to Flex, this'll speed your learning process along surprisingly well;
The Profiler: The live memory/app profiler really helps keep an eye on what's happening inside the box;
The Debugger: It's tough to beat being able to set breakpoints, trace the stack, watch variables, etc. -- great stuff here;
Eclipse: Eclipse is just an excellent IDE, and Adobe has extended it beautifully for Flex and AIR.
Incidentally, I don't do any drag-and-drop stuff, myself; I code everything manually, and I still can't recommend FlexBuilder enough. If you can part with the cash, chances are you'll be happy with the product.
Flex Builder is really useful if your application involves lot of GUI. It provides you a nice IDE do draw GUI. If you are just building actionscript that transforms to swf, you don't need Flex Builder. Flex SDK with your favourite editor is enough.
You may have to learn Actionscript and MXML DTD.
It's not required but it certainly makes things easier.
However, having said that, when you're using the FlexBuilder, you'll probably still end up doing minor tweaks to the UI in the mxml code and not in the IDE.
G-Man
Related
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 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?
Hey guys, I have been programming with as3 for the past 4 months and Ive been getting rather good at it. I just recently decided to work with flashdevelop. I notice that there is alot of code that is availible in the flex sdk that isn't available in as3 with flash cs4. Like embedding of assets and such. I've been trying to find some up to date tutorials on how to embed things like xml and so far the tutorials are inaccurate or unclear about how to go about doing so. Ive been trying to find some good books that cover that and havnt been able to.
The books either cover as3 with flash or as and flex builder. Which is more towards working with the mxml. I havnt been able to find any books on how to work with as3 and flex sdk. Which show examples like embedding of xml and so on. I was just curious does anyone know of any good books that cover EVERYTHING there is to know about as3 and the flex sdk. Not so much on flex builder and mxml.
In a sense, I just want to get better with working with as3 projects with flashdevelop. And it would be great if there was books that covered that. Cause lets just face it, We developers sometimes just get sick of searching the web for bits of pieces of things. and its just great to have that one good book that references everything.
If no one know's of any good books then I guess website can do. but they cant be
http://dispatchevent.org/roger/embed-almost-anything-in-your-swf/
or
http://mattmakesgames.com/blog/2009/06/embedding-xml-in-as3.html
The first one wasn't too bad, they just wasn't clear on how to tap into the nodes, second one was just wrong about how parse the xml. atleast for me he was. I did it line by line and got errors. I just need to get better at flash develop.
Thanks guys!!
Ok, so it seems like when you refer to the "Flex SDK" you are actually mean the MXMLC (the Flex compiler), and not the SDK (although the compiler is part of the SDK).
Both Flash Builder (Flex Builder) and FlashDevelop use MXMLC to compile your SWFs. An exception is that in FlashDevelop if "No Output" is checked in your project settings, then it will tell Flash (Authoring) to compile your SWF. Flash uses its own compiler.
Using the MXMLC compiler, does not mean you must use the Flex framework. It can compile pure AS3 projects too.
Ask youself - Do you need to "embed" the XML document? Can't you just load it in at runtime?
Here is a great run through of MXMLC by Senocular. It's a little dated, but it all should still work, and will give you a greater understanding of what is actually going on. It is a little long, so you could print it out, staple it together, so it feels like a book :) Here is another quicker guide to MXMLC from Erik Johnson.
I think you just have to find a good workflow that works for you. Usually I create all my assets in Flash, then publish them out to a SWC. Then I have a Pure AS3 FlashDevelop project that imports the SWC (right click the SWC in FlashDevelop and click "Add to Library"). I then just use AS3 to chuck the graphics around and do all the magic. Read this post for more info.
You can embed almost anything you want in your swf
FlashDevelop's own wiki has also some good workflow tutorials for all three compiling options (i.e. Compile using Flash, Compile using Flex SDK and create assets using Flash, and Compile using Flex SDK only).
http://www.flashdevelop.org/wikidocs/index.php?title=AS3
I'm a C# developer looking to branch out. I want to try either flex or flash. Any recommendations on which to go with and why?
Flex is a framework for Rich Internet Application development. It extends Flash with controls and namespaces for UI, data, etc.
If you want to venture a little out of your comfort zone, experiment with Flex. If you've ever worked with WPF it will feel familiar. If you want to get really wild and crazy, add Flash. You can combine Flash assets with Flex projects to create some visually zingy applications. It's worth experimenting with both to get a feel for what they can do together, which is quite a bit. Flex Builder is a good tool for both Flex and ActionScript projects.
I encourage you to try Silverlight as well, since you already have the C#. Both platforms have lots to offer.
Silverlight! :D
Seriously, if you already know C# and you want to leverage that for rich internet applications, that's your best bet.
That said, if you're wanting a programmer-friendly non-C# way of doing things, I'd recommend Flex over Flash. Flash is..... shudder.
This link might help you in your decision.
I gotta argree with Dr. Dredel. It's really hard (not impossible) to access databases and other server side stuff in flash. I took a flash class in high school, worst 18 weeks of my computer life.
You guys are forgetting that Flash is installed on 98% of all computers, while not even Bill Gates himself knows how many computers Silverlight is installed on. You should keep your audience in mind when deciding on what platform to experiment on. Also, remember that linux does not support Silverlight.
I think a good analogy to your question would be saying "I'm thinking about trying something new, should I learn how to bake or ballroom dance?"
Flash is primarily a client building thing. It has lots of hooks and bells and whistles, but at the end of the day 98% of what you build is sitting on a client and displaying stuff, not running on a server.
flex is, on some level, an alternative to things like JSP.
Commercially there's a lot of need for Flash, while Flex is just catching on. So, that might influence your decision making to some extent.
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.