Re: JavaFX: dead on start?
- From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
On 2009-01-25, Arne Vajhøj <arne@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Flex and JavaFX look interesting. Flex, in particular, allows me to build
apps with Flash or HTML/AJAX and doesn't require me to learn a whole new
language. (JavaFX looks very different from Java)
If you happen to already know AS then that argument is valid.
Well, I personally do. Not an AS guru by any stretch of the imagination,
but I know enough to be able to do what I need to do.
BUT, I know HTML and JavaScript inside and out, and *that* makes a big
difference, at least to me. I can basically write AJAX apps that run
in a sandbox on a web page - or on the desktop using the AIR runtime.
One advantage with JavaFX is that even though it is a
different language, then you can use existing
Java libs from it.
I have to take a closer look at both. I think they both hold some promise.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
Microsoft's new marketing slogan for Windows is "Life Without Walls."
But if you have no walls, how can you have windows?
.
- References:
- JavaFX: dead on start?
- From: soup_or_power@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: JavaFX: dead on start?
- From: Arne Vajhøj
- Re: JavaFX: dead on start?
- From: Steve Sobol
- Re: JavaFX: dead on start?
- From: Arne Vajhøj
- JavaFX: dead on start?
- Prev by Date: Re: Range of byte in java
- Next by Date: Java 7 release date?
- Previous by thread: Re: JavaFX: dead on start?
- Next by thread: Re: JavaFX: dead on start?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
