I don't like JavaFX script and here's why

Question

What designers need is not a new language, but a WYSIWYG editor and interface for drawing and animating graphics and text, (including 3D in the future), which then automatically generates good old Java!! I see nothing wrong with Java e.g. Box myBox=new Box(); mybox.height=500; mybox.width=600; window.add(myBox); I see this as equally concise and simple as JavaFX, and is fully object-oriented, and as such, fully property-editable ("declarative", as you would put it). And Java is widely known. And it is hugely powerful. Why Sun thinks JavaFX will be easy for designers is beyond me, given that it's a whole new syntax! Yuck! I hope therefore that when a WYSIWYG editor comes out for creating content, that there is at least the OPTION of translating to pure Java, which is just as easy and editable in EVERY respect as JavaFX. SUN, PLEASE CONCENTRATE ON A WYSIWYG EDITOR FOR 2D AND 3D GRAPHICS, which uses pure JAVA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So that we can make fully object-oriented applications and design them easily but have ONE scheme of communication rather than the ActionScript/MXML mess that is Flash, or the C#/XAML mess that is WPF/Silverlight!!!!!!!!!!!
Sun, promote your Java, don't destroy it! I can't help but think you made JavaFX because of the crappy Flash/MXML and Windows/XAML schemes, when you should have realised all along that Java is better and that by making a 2D and 3D graphics WYSIWYG editor, designers will absolutely love it and will be producing content immediately!! And.. we as developers NEED PURE Java.
Regards, N

Answer 1

muchacho wrote:I don't agree with your propose to a Java extension, I don't want Java to become more complex or bloated as C#.If you're talking about the code itself, it's less bloated, not more bloated, and its level of complexity is the same. As for the language, it's the exact same syntax as array declaration, so I disagree that it bloats or complicates Java given that it is a logical extension to array declaration.
This is unlike e.g. C++ where the plethora of features can make code difficult to read.
It is obviously only an option for coders, but where it is used, it makes the Java easier to read, not more difficult to read.
If it was up to me, I'd implement the array declaration syntax to be extended to include objects immediately, since I'm beginning to think that I'd really like to use this way of starting objects!! Not just for GUIs, but all over Java!! It'd certainly make my Java more fun and readable!
Here's the problem I have with the idea of JavaFX "complementing" Java: redundancy. Many features of JavaFX are in Java and vice versa. Therefore they are not complementary languages but compete directly. This is not a bad thing at all, but if they truly pursue JavaFX, they should ensure that both JavaFX and Java have full and complete functionality and full API access, so nobody can have a single regret if they go with either platform. For example: if I use Java I don't want to miss out on a Java API adaptation of the "bindable" functionality, or easy use of callbacks, and if I use JavaFX I don't want to miss out on fully object oriented functionality and structure, and access to ALL Java APIs, including third party and all old ones.
If that happens, as it should, then I want JavaFX everywhere, including server side, and I won't touch Java again, including for 3D games, media applications, business systems, etc. etc., server and client side. I'd literally make the complete switch, because I'd much prefer to develop in one language than two. And I would also recommend JavaFX to others if they enquire and if they are starting from scratch because of some of its nicer features. It would have all the same functionality and performance anyway if Sun ensures it, right? And then I'd like to see it re-named something original like "Sun MagicScript" for its first official release because I don't think "JavaFX" really demarks it as a new and proper language, which it is.
Then I would become a real "MagicScript" FAN and convert!! And I won't look back!
If it doesn't offer the full object-oriented functionality or full API access as Java, or to be extra-safe, they should ensure that the WYSIWYG editor generates pure Java very, very well, as well as to cater for the existing Java-ites and scared people, allowing the option of both Java and "MagicScript" generation. I also truly look forward to this WYSIWYG editor (with the features I've described earlier) as my main request!
All the very best!! :)
N