Talk:JavaFX Script

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is JavaFX Script (merge with F3?)[edit]

So, I'm not the only one who hasn't got a clue what JavaFX Script is? EAi 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of links which might give you a better idea. I think it is going to be a competitor to Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight. --Daniel newton 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, no mention of video there though, which is clearly the focus of Sliverlight (and Flash more and more). I have to say after reading a number of articles, its not clear how JavaFX works, its syntax style or anything else. If it really is a renaming of F3, the pages should be merged... EAi 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any video examples either (but JavaFX can use java classes so it should be possible).
If you want to see some demos go here (https://openjfx.dev.java.net/#demos).
It is definitely a renaming of F3 (same syntax, same author).--Daniel newton 01:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, since it's a renaming, we should merge, right? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes --Daniel newton 05:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of JavaFX Script in an article (in italian) [1] where it is presented as an alternative to AJAX, MS Silverlight and Abobe Apollo. For the renaming from F3, I cannot reach the server, but if you checked that the syntax is the same, I agree the merging too --- Katanzag 07:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it is the new name of the former F3, the two articles should be merged. Hervegirod 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote we hold off for a couple of weeks, or until the situation is clarified. There's a possibility (slim, granted) that JavaFX Script is a fork of F3, and that the two projects may continue in parallel. F3 may proceed as an incubator for new ideas which then find themselves ported into the more conservative, and commercial, JFX (one possibility.) The "F3" name is probably dead, but until we can be sure I think we should place prominent links between the two articles, and leave them as they are for a while. Just my 2c.  :) JavaKid 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its definitely a rename, theres no reason to wait, just someone be bothered to redirect it! EAi 18:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Hervegirod 11:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should JavaFX redirect here?[edit]

Sun's announcements are somewhat vague on the matter. Most references suggest that JavaFX is a family of products, of which the scripting languages is merely one component. But the FAQ has this little gem: 

Why is the JavaFX Script name so long?
Although the official name of the scripting language is JavaFX 
Script, we expect many programmers to just call it JavaFX as it 
is the core of the JavaFX family.

I expect therefore it is another example of an overloaded term, like 'Java' itself, which is used to refer to a platform and a language (etc.) For now I've changed the redirect for "Javafx" to point to "JavaFX", rather than "JavaFX Script". The JavaFX article provides a prominent link to the scripting article, so inquisitive eyes won't get waylaid.

Comments? JavaKid 09:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I agree with your choice to separate the family of the product from the products itselves, as in explained in SUN JavaFX Home, inspite of common use abbreviations, and that the three pages should evolve separately (for now) - Katanzag 11:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIX this please - someone with a clue[edit]

What does confronting mean? Comforting maybe? Difficult to face (confront)? Confused as hell (me, or perhaps the original author)? It does not seem to be written by a non-English speaker, so perhaps I forgot how to read English. Fitzhugh 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) "This contrasts strongly to Swing, which has a verbose syntax that is confronting to many experienced developers."[reply]

I've rewritten that paragraph from scratch. It was rather sloppily worded, perhaps written in hast. Firstly, it suggested the Visual Basic syntax is declarative, with binding. I'm no a VB expert, but does the syntax itself support these things? I Googled around and there's no mention of them. Is this a true like-for-like comparison? Secondly, it compares a language syntax with a series of Swing API calls. The way it was worded it gave the impression that Swing has a language syntax unto itself. Apples and oranges. I'm not suggesting the things I removed had no place in the article, just that I strongly suspected the wording was ambiguous and misleading. JavaKid 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VB doesn't have a declarative syntax, no. In the background, there's some vaguely declarative stuff for building forms, but nobody ever modifies these files manually, you purely use the IDE. VB is a functional and OO language really. EAi 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of other Java scripting languages necessary?[edit]

Is it really relevant to have the likes of BeanShell, Jython and JRuby (not to mention Ajax) in the 'See also' section? What relationship do they have with JavaFX which makes them worthy of note here? JavaFX and JavaFX Script are 'domain specific', and not general purpose tools. Before the list starts to grow to include every possible variation of scripting language, perhaps it should be pruned to just direct competitors and closely related technologies (eg: Swing is just about okay IMHO) ??? JavaKid 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

This reads like it has been copied directly from the JavaFX documentation or something, especially the Prerequisites section, which I think could even be removed completely if noone wants to rephrase it. 84.227.142.60 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is JavaFX Script fully open source?[edit]

I know that javafx compiler is open source, but scene graph element isn't atm. scenegraph.dev.java.net holds old version of it. I think it should be clearly mentioned in the article. Maybe javafx compiler being OS makes JavaFX Script open sourced and scenegraph is not a part of JavaFX Script, but part of JavaFX rather? If someone could clarify...

JavaFX Script merge JavaFX Article[edit]

JavaFX is NOT a scripting language:


It is described as a "compiled, statically typed, declarative, scripting language".

Is this then a paradoxical statement? I would have thought that 'compiled' and 'scripting' are mutually exclusive. But perhaps my definitions of those terms is not accurate. I thought that scripting means read at run time - ie interpreted.

So I agree with the blockquote above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.250.229 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. JavaFX Script is separate from the other functionality that JavaFX provides (cross-platform UIs focusing on mobile, for example). This article, documenting that Oracle is discontinuing JavaFX Script while moving JavaFX to a purely Java API further proves my point: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/JavaFX-Script-is-dead-long-live-JavaFX-1082823.html --Rehevkor5 (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on JavaFX Script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JavaFX_Script&oldid=1203076965"