earlier replies
Replying to @h_schreiber
@h_schreiber not really did a lot with javaFX, so i have no clue how good/bad it is. But the Graphics Performance is impressive though.
1
@phaus Well, think about what platform(s) you want to deploy to and how much pain you can deal with.
1
@h_schreiber i guess at least Mac OS and Windows. Maybe some Status tool for Twitter/ADN/Xing/Linkedin … don't know :-)
1
@phaus @h_schreiber I'd be way too afraid of Oracle sticking with it to invest in JavaFX.
2
@stilkov @h_schreiber Of course it is somehow proprietary like QT. But since Swing has no UI accel. at all, i at least would give it a try.
3
@phaus @stilkov If you have an app that does not have to look like it's native, sure, try JavaFX, but I'm skeptical.
1
@h_schreiber @stilkov one bad thing with javaFX Apps is, that they tend to be > 100MB if you want to also ship the JRE with them :/.
1
@phaus @stilkov Yep. And it's not a matter of *want*. You *must*. There is no way around it.
1
@h_schreiber @stilkov if you believe this guy: blog.backblaze.com/2008/12/1… you should/can do it all by hand/in C++ :-).
3
@phaus @stilkov The problem with rule 2 is that a sufficiently sexy app is 95% GUI. Users want sweets, not vegetables blog.backblaze.com/2008/12/1…
1
Replying to @h_schreiber
@h_schreiber @phaus Huh? That's the way I read it: Accept you'll have to redo the UI for every platform

Apr 23, 2013 · 12:22 PM UTC

1
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @phaus I understand it the same way and agree. But the author claims cross platform adds 5%. If the GUI is 95% that cannot be true.
1
@h_schreiber @phaus True for everything with a non-trivial UI, I agree it may be as high as 80:20