Win a copy of Design for the Mind this week in the Design forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

JavaFX Performance

 
Theodore Casser
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1902
Hibernate Netbeans IDE PHP
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
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?
 
James Weaver
author
Ranch Hand
Posts: 40
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
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
 
Theodore Casser
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1902
Hibernate Netbeans IDE PHP
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
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?
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic