JavaFX: Lame Duck or Golden Goose?

The software industry is highly competitive and just like consumers, developers have to wade through a sea of FUD and misinformation when it comes to selecting the languages and tools for their next project.

This is particularly true for JavaFX.

Consider the following much-uttered statements:

  • Rich client and/or the desktop is dead.
  • The web browser is the platform of the future.
  • HTML5 and JavaScript are the only languages you need to learn.
  • HTML5 applications are just like native applications.
  • HTML5 is the only true cross-platform technology.
  • Java will never run on mobiles or tablets.
  • Java is dead.
  • JavaFX is D.O.A.

I for one am sick and tired of guff like this because all of it is in fact completely incorrect.

For example, despite an enormous amount of hype, HTML5 is not going to cure cancer or put a man on Mars or do whatever the current outlandish claim about this technology is.  HTML5 is very important and has a very significant role to play in the future of software development but if you believed everything you read on the interwebs about it you might as well ditch all other languages and devote your life to the worship of everything HTML5.

Well, don’t.

If your requirements are for modern web sites then by all means invest in learning HTML5, CSS3 and, of course, JavaScript.  But that’s just it: HTML was and is designed for web sites, not applications, despite what HTML5 fanboys might tell you.  Even with all the (excellent) improvements in HTML5 that were not present in its predecessors, you still have a platform that is most suitable for presenting pages of marked-up text with hyperlinks, media and graphics.  The key word here is “page” which is a vastly different animal from an “application”.

It’s true that HTML5 allows you to build “things” that can be accessed on all the major classes of devices we currently use but these “things” will always be web sites and not what end users have come to know as “applications”.  This is because web sites have serious limitations that prevent them morphing into fully fledged applications such as performance limitations, lack of support for multi-threading, poor access to native APIs, lack of advanced programming language features such as true OOP, poor access to hardware devices/sensors etc. and a very limited range of APIs to make use of in the first place.  For these reasons there are many software categories that are simply not suitable for web-based deployment.  For such software we need the power of native applications.

Consider this tidbit: when iOS was first released, Apple actually expected developers to favour web-based software over native applications.  Not only did developers not want this but consumers were never going to be satisfied with the sub-standard apps that resulted from using the web technologies available at the time and now, years later and even with the release of improvements to HTML5, the vast majority of software used on iPhones and iPads is delivered as native apps.  The Android experience is much the same.  Even with Microsoft’s “Modern UI” found in Windows 8 and Windows RT that tried to promote HTML5/JavaScript development, native apps dominate.

Clearly then, not only are native apps alive and well but they still have an enormous part to play in the future of software development.  What definitely isn’t FUD or misinformation is the *fact* that HTML applications (i.e. web sites) and native apps can and will live side-by-side for many years to come simply because they fill very different niches.  And quite clearly neither rich client nor the desktop are anywhere near death.  The reality is starkly different with desktop applications surviving into the future for at least 15 years as there remain several niches where only such applications can deliver.

Accordingly I’d like to now focus on native apps and the various ways they can be developed and deployed.  If you are only interested in HTML5 then GIYF and, you are seriously missing out.

Up to this point I have been using the terms “app” and “application” somewhat interchangeably.  The distinction between the two has probably never formally been defined but I suppose most people think of applications as software that runs on a desktop and apps as software that runs on a mobile phone or tablet device.  As far as I am concerned, these is actually no distinction between these two terms and I will now focus on using the word “app” simply because it requires fewer letters to type.

So, I have a great idea for a new app, now I have to ask myself some key questions:

  1. What language(s) and tool(s) am I going to use to develop it?
  2. Which platforms is it going to be deployed to?
  3. How can I minimise the effort and costs involved in development yet maximise its global presence?

Well, there are two main approaches to development of “native” apps that are used today namely finding some kind of cross-device meta platform or language that will enable me to develop using a core code base and deploy to a number of devices with minimal changes or utilising the best languages and tools on each device/platform to maximise the “native” experience but pay the cost of having to write large chunks of platform-specific code.

Choosing between these two approaches has never been easy and usually comes down to being determined by the specific nature of the app or even personal experience or choice.

I don’t know about you but I certainly don’t have the time or financial resources to build software specific to each particular platform even if I am able to compartmentalise as much core code as possible that can be reused.  It’s not just the development effort but testing on multiple devices and platforms is extremely time-consuming.

So that’s one of the reasons why I am looking at JavaFX.

For those that don’t know, JavaFX is the new(ish) graphics toolkit for Java applications that has officially replaced the now deprecated Swing toolkit.  It’s strengths are that it is high-performance (being hardware accelerated), supports 2D & 3D graphics and animations, does charting, plays media, includes a WebKit based browser component, has sophisticated data binding capabilities and utilises an XML-based file format known as FXML.  There is also a drag-and-drop WYSIWYG design tool known as Scene Builder for whipping-up GUIs fast.  And JavaFX is open source.  Further, JavaFX apps run on almost every operating system known to mankind…

…or almost.  The major caveat is that currently there is no “official” release of JavaFX for iOS or Android.  There isn’t one for Windows Phone either but that is hardly a weakness :-) However, members of the JavaFX community have demonstrated working examples of JavaFX running on iOS and Android using a product called RoboVM.  Given that these demos prove that there is only a lack of investment getting in the way, I believe it is only a matter of time before we will see apps written in JavaFX in the Apple App Store and in Google Play.

When I say “JavaFX” I am not referring to the first generation JavaFX that was released in about 2007.  That JavaFX was a different beast because it relied on a brand new scripting language called JavaFX Script and basically very few people bothered to learn it.  It wasn’t that the language was bad (in fact it had some outstanding features); it’s just that Java programmers wanted to keep programming in Java.  And now they can.  With the advent of JavaFX 2, the API is just-another-Java-API and the JavaFX functionality can be accessed from any JVM-based language such as Groovy or Scala.  This is a *huge* advantage over JavaFX 1 and is the main reason why interest in JavaFX has exploded in the last couple of years.

A very broad range of apps can be developed using JavaFX ranging from simple form-based UIs to complex 2D/3D graphics incorporating audio and video playback and animated content.  It is therefore suitable for business apps and games as well.  Sure, I wouldn’t choose JavaFX to write Halo 6 or build an operating system but they’re not the kind of apps I develop on a daily basis and I don’t think many people actually get to work on such projects very often.  But for your most common business and personal software requirements, JavaFX is an ideal fit and not just for Java programmers.  While it is very clear that Java programmers will be by far the most abundant users of JavaFX, developers who have never used Java will gravitate to this toolkit because it offers them features, performance levels and deployment options not readily available with other products.

Also, there is a real buzz about JavaFX in the Java community at the moment with several high-profile JavaFX rock stars motivating people like me to get involved.  If you have questions, someone will quickly respond on the official JavaFX forum and more and more code snippets are cropping up online to help you bash out your first app.

I have to say that having considered all the options I could locate and after a great deal of research and actual software testing I am convinced that JavaFX is no Lame Duck.  Quite the contrary in fact.  It’s a Goose; a Goose of the Golden variety.

Just my 2 bits.


Posted on July 22, 2013, in JavaFX and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. You said it. First problem with new JavaFX was its name. It must be called “Swing Next” or something like. Oracle must kill JavaFX name once and for all. Oracle is selling JavaFX like the ultimate technology to rule all enviroments: desktop, mobile, web, you name it. And this is WRONG. Nobody is listening. Nobody needs/wants Swing today. Why someone will look into JavaFX then? JavaFX is a niche tech, a Java-only tech. HTML5/CSS3/JS is open, it’s standard, it runs everywhere, it runs on everty stack. Do you see something there? Do you remenber the Java moto: “write once, run everywhere”. That’s HTML5/CSS3/JS today. Oracle (and Sun) first killed Java on mobile. Traditional desktop is no-go now. JavaFX is from the past. Silverlight already failed. Flash is dying like a zombie. JavaFX will have any luck? Seriously? Good luck with it.
    Oracle need to embrace Android, but it will never happens. Oracle is acting like a child.

  2. Hi argento,

    I totally disagree that there is anything wrong with the name JavaFX and I actually think it’s a good name. It makes it clear that we are talking about a Java API and the “FX” suffix indicates that there’s something happening with graphics or “effects”.

    I also disagree with most of your other comments too.

    Who says nobody is listening to Oracle’s plans for JavaFX? Plenty of people are listening. In fact, everyone who has ever developed a GUI with Java is listening. Even developers with a background in languages other than Java are listening. Swing may be “old hat” but JavaFX is more than an ample replacement.

    JavaFX is also not niche. It runs on almost every major platform so clearly isn’t niche at all. Sure, there’s no official release for iOS or Android (yet) but I very confident that such releases are in the pipeline. Oracle selling JavaFX as a technology for all environments is absolutely spot on!

    You say HTML5/CSS3/JS is “standard”. Well, the language specifications may be “standard” but the implementations across the multitude of browsers are anything but standard. At least with Java you can be confident that there won’t be significant differences between the JREs you are running your app on. Java is far more “standard” in this respect.

    Your comments about Flash and Sliverlight are correct but JavaFX is not really in the same class as those products and is certainly not dying. JavaFX is not a technology that only exists as a browser plugin. It’s a complete API and accompanying platform that can be used to develop sophisticated applications for many devices running inside or outside a browser. This is just one reason why JavaFX will survive long term as opposed to Flash and Silverlight.

    Oracle does not need to “embrace Android” in the sense of utilising the Dalvik VM or its implementation of Java. The Oracle HotSpot JVM is much, much better and I really think we will see HotSpot on iOS and Android in the not too distant future. Then we will have a single technology that is truly cross-platform and one that can be used to develop serious applications instead of just fancy web sites.


  3. “HTML was and is designed for web sites, not applications, despite what HTML5 fanboys might tell you.”

    Amen to this! I’m so sick of hearing about how HTML 5 is going to save the world.

    However, I don’t share your enthusiasm for JavaFX. I think that developers who are looking for a cross-platform solution won’t look any further than HTML, and the rest will be fine with using a native SDK.

    I’d personally like to see something like an “AWT 2.0″ that would allow me to build native apps in Java. It should support both mobile and desktop, though not necessarily using the same set of widgets. However, I highly doubt this will ever happen.

  4. I need to to thank you for this good read!! I definitely enjoyed every little bit of it.
    I’ve got you book marked to check out new things you post…

  5. Ponxatony Phil

    The bug in the background is scary!

  6. AnOldSwingDeveloper

    I did Java Swing for 12 years (and loved it) and if you had asked me 2 years ago if JavaScript would replace a complicated Java app I would have said you were crazy.

    But after using Sencha Touch on mobile and ExtJS on the desktop my attitude has changed drastically. The Sencha Touch app I wrote for a financial company runs on iPhones, iPads, Androids, Android Tablets, Kindles, MS Phones, MS Surface tablets, Blackberry 10’s, AND on the desktop using Safari, Chrome, and IE10. Now THAT is beyond cross-platform in my book. It’s unbelievable having all these machines running on a table for everyone to see. Using the SAME code base.

    We did end up using ExtJS for a dedicated desktop app simply because the mobile version didn’t have a grid control that was powerful enough for our needs.

  1. Pingback: JavaFX on iOS and Android | iWorldTracker

  2. Pingback: JavaFX: Why it matters even more with Java 8 | Just my 2 bits

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers

%d bloggers like this: