QML vs. FXML
dschaefer at qnx.com
Thu Mar 5 15:23:08 UTC 2015
In general, it’s an argument against writing code in XML. XML was really meant to be a machine to machine language, to make things like SceneBuilder easier to write :). People came second.
You really want to use a domain specific language that’s easy to read and write. QML is that. I find XML tags overwhelm the rest of the text making it hard to understand what’s going on, and hard to write unless you have a good XML editor. QML has less cruft and it’s easier to see what’s happening with a quick glance.
Now, having said that, HTML seems to be pretty popular…
From: "ngalarneau at ABINITIO.COM<mailto:ngalarneau at ABINITIO.COM>" <ngalarneau at ABINITIO.COM<mailto:ngalarneau at ABINITIO.COM>>
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM
To: Doug Schaefer <dschaefer at qnx.com<mailto:dschaefer at qnx.com>>
Cc: "openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net>" <openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net>>
Subject: QML vs. FXML
You said: "good declarative UI language, think QML not FXML".
What do you see as the advantages of QML over FXML?
From: Doug Schaefer <dschaefer at qnx.com<mailto:dschaefer at qnx.com>>
To: "openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net>" <openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net>>,
Date: 03/05/2015 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: 8u40 is released / SB
Sent by: "openjfx-dev" <openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net<mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>>
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<mailto: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<mailto: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
NOTICE from Ab Initio: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is subject to confidentiality obligations or is legally privileged, and sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege. If received in error, please notify the sender, delete this email, and make no further use, disclosure, or distribution.
More information about the openjfx-dev