Talk about OPENJFX's future
swpalmer at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 16:13:16 UTC 2018
I would focus on bug-free functionality and *performance* over new features. Layout and CSS issues still seem to have a significant drag on JavaFX rendering.
Much of the new features I want are somewhat motivated by performance anyway. E.g. getting native window handles… to handle performance issues with 3D and video overlays.
I think #2, while cheap, will severely harm JavaFX adoption just from the added nuisance alone. Is there a precedent where this has worked out?
> On Sep 21, 2018, at 12:04 PM, javafx at use.startmail.com wrote:
> Two items for us
> 1) focus on bug-free functionality over new features.
> 2) require a U.S. $50.00 a year fee per corporate entity for commercial application usage. This is very reasonable and would finally secure JavaFX's future as a development platform.
> I feel without 2) above we will find ourselves wandering around cyberspace hoping for a benefactor or the charity of volunteers and their spare time.
> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 5:52 AM, John-Val Rose <johnvalrose at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That video is typical marketing “smoke and mirrors”.
>> With no access to the code of either app, it is simply unfair and disingenuous to claim a performance advantage.
>> I am certain I could post an almost identical comparison video where the results would be the complete opposite.
>> Yeah, good programmers can write slow code (especially if you have a motive)...
>> On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:29, Johan Vos <johan.vos at gluonhq.com> wrote:
>>>> We can't defeat QT in performance, but we can defeat it at applicability
>>>> and just don't get too far behind QT in performance. (bad example
>>> That video demonstrates the creator has absolutely no development skills in
>>> Java, or he intentionally misleads the viewer. I leave it to the reader to
>>> judge what would be worst.
>>> I am not going to make performance statements without numbers, but my first
>>> observations using JavaFX 11 with the Bellsoft Liberica VM are very
>>> encouraging (see https://gluonhq.com/javafx-11-early-access-on-embedded/)
>>> - Johan
More information about the openjfx-dev