Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #30393

Re: Could this be done better

Show all headers | View raw

Op Monday 24 Nov 2014 12:49 CET schreef Qu0ll:

> "Cecil Westerhof" wrote in message
> news:87zjbg97c5.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl...
>
>> I have mostly programmed back-ends. But I now want also to do some
>> front-end programming.
>>
>> I wrote the following simple program. It does nothing useful, it
>> just displays a description in different colours with the colour
>> appended to the description.
>>
>> I was just wondering if this could be done better.
>
> Yes - use JavaFX instead of Swing.
>
> JavaFX is the *official* GUI toolkit for use with Java applications
> as stated by Oracle themselves. Swing is deprecated (though not in
> the pure Java sense) in that it is not getting any love (updates,
> bug fixes, new features) and never will.
>
> Java developers should only use Swing if they have to modify an
> existing application or write a new one that works with existing
> frameworks that happen to be Swing-based.
>
> Otherwise, use JavaFX.  Don't look back.

Well there where several reasons to use Swing, but most seem not valid
anymore.
- I work mostly with Linux. JavaFX was not supported there, but it
looks like that is solved.
- I also work with Clojure. The ‘only’ GUI to use was Swing, but it
seems that JavaFX should be doable also.
- It also looks like JavaFX is supported on Android.
- But this one is still valid I am afraid. At a lot of projects they
expect you to have Swing experience. JavaFX rarely as far as I have
seen. So I think it is good to start with Swing, but not forget about
JavaFX.

By the way: is JavaFX thread safe? Swing is not I found out.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Could this be done better Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2014-11-24 12:16 +0100
  Re: Could this be done better "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com> - 2014-11-24 22:49 +1100
    Re: Could this be done better Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2014-11-24 17:54 +0100
      Re: Could this be done better Knute Johnson <eternal@knutejohnson.com> - 2014-11-24 09:37 -0800
        Re: Could this be done better Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2014-11-24 19:27 +0100
  Re: Could this be done better Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-24 09:23 -0500
    Re: Could this be done better Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2014-11-24 17:45 +0100
      Re: Could this be done better Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-24 13:42 -0500
        Re: Could this be done better Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2014-11-25 00:12 +0100
    Re: Could this be done better Knute Johnson <eternal@knutejohnson.com> - 2014-11-24 09:19 -0800
      Re: Could this be done better Knute Johnson <eternal@knutejohnson.com> - 2014-11-24 09:41 -0800
        Re: Could this be done better Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2014-11-25 00:55 +0100
      Re: Could this be done better Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2014-11-25 00:11 +0100
        Re: Could this be done better Knute Johnson <eternal@knutejohnson.com> - 2014-11-24 16:26 -0800
  Re: Could this be done better Brixomatic <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-25 19:58 +0100
    Re: Could this be done better Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-25 14:36 -0500
      Re: Could this be done better Brixomatic <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-26 01:58 +0100
        Re: Could this be done better Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-26 08:48 -0500
          Re: Could this be done better Brixomatic <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-29 19:43 +0100
            Re: Could this be done better Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-29 15:44 -0500
              Re: Could this be done better Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-29 15:47 -0500

csiph-web