wood burning stoves
The moose likes HTML, CSS and JavaScript and the fly likes JavaFX Performance Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Engineering » HTML, CSS and JavaScript
Bookmark "JavaFX Performance" Watch "JavaFX Performance" New topic

JavaFX Performance

Theodore Casser
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 14, 2001
Posts: 1902

Having been at JavaOne last year for the announcement and rollout, I've been looking forward to actually seeing this becoming something "big" on the Internet... but I'm somewhat concerned that it's going to end up being the next Java ME in the US (interesting, fun to play with, but not quite as general-use as other Java technologies) due to the performance of the examples I've seen. It's been a few months since I last took a look at examples and at the official blogs detailing progress on FX, but is there sufficient performance from it now to rationalize the use of the technology to a client?

Theodore Jonathan Casser
SCJP/SCSNI/SCBCD/SCWCD/SCDJWS/SCMAD/SCEA/MCTS/MCPD... and so many more letters than you can shake a stick at!
James Weaver
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2007
Posts: 40
Now that JavaFX Script compiles to JVM bytecode, it is very fast. Take a look at this BubbleMark benchmark demo

JRE deployment, plug-in reliability, and startup time issues are being addressed by the Java SE 6 update 10 initiative

Thanks,<br />James L. (Jim) Weaver<br /><a href="http://JavaFXpert.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">"Helping you become a JavaFXpert" weblog</a>
Theodore Casser
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 14, 2001
Posts: 1902

I suppose that's a way to look at it. And I'm imagining that the compiled is substantially faster than the interpreted. But, all things being equal, what's the difference in performance between the two? Is it significant enough that it would be worthwhile to, say, make sure to compile versions of applications written in JavaFX before impromptu demonstrations so as not to give a false impression of lack of performance?

And, on the other hand, are there situations where the interpreted version may have enough performance to suffice, rather than taking that additional step?
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
subject: JavaFX Performance
It's not a secret anymore!