Ulf Dittmer wrote:IMO, JavaFX is not the future. Java on the desktop had its chance, but it's been dead for most practical purposes for a long time. Sure, there are some apps that thrive (tools, mostly), but extremely few consumer apps. It's going to remain a tiny niche market. Frankly, I find the JavaFX effort baffling - a rather pointless project, IMO, that distracts Oracle from more useful things.
Stephan van Hulst wrote: I'm afraid Ulf and Bear are correct though.
Claude Moore wrote:There are tons of frameworks out of there. You cannot know how long
they're going to survive.
Claude Moore wrote:i just wanted to point out that the world of web frameworks is really a jungle (at least for a not experienced web programmer like me), and that's all but simple to find your way among various, appealing frameworks.
When you choose to adopt and use a language ( like java, .net, or delphi for example ) you have a standard library for developing GUIs
In the field of web programming isn't so easy, the search for a "definitive" way of coding web pages
but at least they're "endorsed" by a language vendor.
so one may be legitimate to feel lost..
Bear Bibeault wrote:
And since when is having multiple, appealing choices a problem?
Bear Bibeault wrote:
But yes, the field of web frameworks -- and here I'm focusing on client-side frameworks, and dismissing the server-sods dinosaurs -- is one of the most dynamic I've witnessed in my almost 4 decades in the field. What to use? AngularJS? Ember? Backbone? Without or without RequireJS? Underscore or Handlebar templates? The choices do seem endless.
Bear Bibeault wrote:and here I'm focusing on client-side frameworks, and dismissing the server-sods dinosaurs
Claude Moore wrote:
I agree with you about the fact that even for Java we have different ways to do the very same thing (JPA, Hibernate, Spring). But Spring, Hibernate and so on are "alternatives" to
an "official way to do things" which is Java EE, an "umbrella" one may always take shelter under.
By the way: thank you really for your answer and sharing your opinion on this matter.
Bear Bibeault wrote:JSF stinks of the tar pits. It's never made any great inroads and is unlikely to in the future. Even if server-side development was still considered "where it's at", JSF is generally viewed as an over-complicated, Rube Goldberg contraption. Two of my recent jobs have been to replace JSF-laden monsters with more reasonable implementations.
And while I agree with Ulf that server-side frameworks will be around for a while, they're no longer consider cutting-edge, and up-and-coming companies (you know, the ones that are hiring the best talent and paying for it) are looking elsewhere.
Dieter Quickfend wrote:You're probably right that we are probably balancing more to the client again... But I've no doubt that in some years the server will come back.
Bear Bibeault wrote:I think we need more of that on the Ranch.
Bear Bibeault wrote:By the way, I gave you a cow for reasoned and interesting discussion. I think we need more of that on the Ranch.