8u40 is released / SB
dschaefer at qnx.com
Thu Mar 5 14:58:05 UTC 2015
GUI builders are great for prototyping or helping you learn. But when the
application gets complex I keep hearing developers throw them out. They
start getting in the way.
I think if you have a good API and a good declarative UI language, think
QML not FXML, then you may find you don¹t really need a GUI builder. How
may people are using GUI builders to create Web app UI¹s? Now web UIs are
simpler, but maybe that¹s the point.
And why not leave GUI builders to the tools vendors. They¹re hard to make
and get right, especially of you don¹t have a revenue model to support the
army of developers you need.
Hmm, I wonder what React Native would look like with JavaFX and NashornŠ
On 2015-03-05, 7:20 AM, "Scott Palmer" <swpalmer at gmail.com> wrote:
>I would never consider for a second coding FXML "directly". I have only
>tweaked it by hand occasionally after creating it with SceneBuilder. SB
>is an important selling point for JavaFX and should be included in the
>JDK, it shouldn't even be a separate download.
>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Tom Eugelink <tbee at tbee.org> wrote:
>> My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of
>>work, while I expect that a lot of programmers won't be using SB because
>>it always has limitations. Either with complex layouts or custom
>>controls. "Real" programmers probably use FXML directly or even just
>>code it in Java. So the "return on investment" probably is fairly low
>>and thus the resources can be much better spent on the core. IMHO.
>>> On 5-3-2015 02:34, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>> I agree that SB is probably something that can be well maintained by
>>> community at this point, especially with commercial backing from Gluon
More information about the openjfx-dev