Slashdot Mirror
Sun Debuts JavaFX As Alternative To AJAX
r7 writes "Internetnews is reporting on Sun's introduction of JavaFX at JavaOne today. Looks like a combination Applet, Flash, Javascript, and AJAX with a friendly programming interface. Does this really spell the end of AJAX? I sincerely hope so. Nothing built on Javascript will ever achieve the security, cross-platform reliability, and programmatic friendliness that Web 2.0 needs. Proprietary solutions and vendor lock-in are also dead ends. JavaFX has the potential to satisfy this opportunity even better than did Java over a decade ago. Along with AJAX, let's hope JavaFX also puts paid to Microsoft's viral Active-X and JScript, and, more importantly, that it really is a web scripting language that developers can grok."
So we're moving away from a de-facto standard that is already implemented with free software, towards the proprietary Adobe Flash platform and the vendor lock-in that it implies?
Did it occur to you that you're sounding exactly like the hype you're decrying?
AJAX is a stupid name developed for the ole' hype machine (mostly to sell conferences and books, methinks) but the basic web technologies behind it are NOT THAT BAD. To use the example from the article, am I "tearing [my] hair out over as [I] attempt to get the JavaScript working in both Internet Explorer and Firefox?" Actually? No, I'm not. And I just implemented a Comet library in both Javascript and Actionscript. About the most frustrating thing was the fact that Opera ignored the cache-disable commands when using XML.load in Flash. So I build a solution into the library. And if you think that's fun, wait until I detect Server Side Events in Opera and use XMLSockets in Actionscript!
*shrug*
Oh, and I had to dynamically patch Safari and Opera to add support for the toSource function. Easy as for(var i in object) pie.
The problem with most "AJAX coders" is that they still think of Javascript as that cutesy language they used to do scrolling statusbar text with. But it simply isn't that bad. In fact, Javacript is a full-up, Object Oriented (or at least, OOP capable) langauge that fits the lightweight needs of the web browser perfectly. Java is a 600 pound gorilla that's better for designing heavyweight applications that are secure, robust, fast, and feature complete. The two target very different markets.
As for JavaFX, there is (if you'll excuse the expression) "nothing to see here". It's just a Silverlight competitor. Which makes it just as questionable as the product against which it's competing. If you really want a replacement for XMLHttpRequest, use XMLSocket instead,
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Java 5 and (even more so) 6 have really helped curb the init time of applets. Plus on windows, IIRC it stays resident so after the first instantiation of the Java VM, load up times are very small. This is not including the time required to download the required classes for the applet, but it would probably be no worse than waiting for a heavy javascript laden page to load up.
That would be great, but in reality, when people invest enough money into something and there is ubiquitous support for it, it tend to stick and migration to something new drags on forever.
And there is so much big corporate inter politics involved with each side rallying their alternatives that it looks like we are stuck with the lowest common denominator, that beeing for the moment javascript.
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
Also from the site: Like all of Java, JavaFX Script will be available via the GPL license.
Bad phrasing on the part of the submitter and/or editors: according to the article, JavaFX isn't a "combination Applet, Flash, Javascript, and AJAX" in the technological sense, but in the sense of the kinds of features it provides. It's actually an extension to Java.
Anyway, there is one drawback it's going to have as compared to AJAX: It will require end-users to install something. As it is now, AJAX will run (to some extent) in MSIE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and a number of browsers with similar rendering engines. Even if it gets built in to the standard JRE, that still requires people to install Java, putting it more on par with Flash (though at this point a lot of people do have Java installed).
So, how long before Sun convinces Apple to include JavaFX in their version of the JRE? Last I looked you couldn't just download a JRE for MacOS X.
It's the first instantiation that matters.. Applets are so uncommon that the average user will only come across them once per reboot.
Also, because of the most stupid thing Sun ever did, people tend to deliberately close the JVM after that first initiation. Why? Cause Sun puts a stupid little Java icon into the systray. It immediately draws attention to the fact that the JVM is in memory and people think they might get a speed boost or something by closing it. (Or something equally irrational that users think.) This was a pretty predictable result.. and the icon serves no purpose anyway, so why bother?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Actually, ActiveX is a patented Microsoft Security Hole(TM) big enough to drive a Mack Truck through. Effectively, Microsoft looked at Java Applets and said, "The biggest problem with it is that it doesn't access Windows APIs and has all that security BS. We can do better." Next thing you know, Microsoft "partners" are showing how you can access DirectDraw and Direct3D to make ActiveX components that were WAY more impressive than the simplistic animations that Java was capable of. Of course, the security implications hit Microsoft less than a year later as Malware started exploiting the system for all kinds of nefarious purposes.
Microsoft kinda-sorta shuffled it off into other areas after that. Now they're back with a vengence. Silverlight will be everything that ActiveX was going to be, but BETTER! Can you feel the excitement?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
A demo of JavaFX (embedded in Java WebStart--yuck) can be found at http://blogs.sun.com/chrisoliver/ . Seeing as flash comes up instantly in browsers, even if it takes some time to download code, etc, and that web pages with ajax also render near instantly, I don't see how JavaFX is really going to appeal to end users. The JVM plugin still takes time to load on all browsers and platforms and is quite big. And on almost all browsers and platforms I've ever used, tends to lock up the browser for 10-20 seconds at a time. Further how will JavaFX integrate with HTML? Javascript?
.NET don't have these problems, mainly because flash is a fraction of the size of the entire JVM adn runtime, and .NET is always loaded and ready to go on windows.
.NET (mono notwithstanding). I really want to like Java, I really do.
Flash and
Anyway, given the current state of Java technology in the browser, I don't see this as being any different from WebStart, which everyone loves to hate because it is so clunky.
I dislike the idea of Silverlight entirely, particularly anything that relies on
AJAX has given web-pages a new breath of life. Things like google-maps, netflix, etc. have definitely done things I wouldn't have thought possible before. And packages like RoR have managed to find ways to automatically generate most of the AJAX you need.
.. a small increment without actually fixing any of the big issues.
I don't claim to be an AJAX expert, but it seems really good for the simple things you need to do. You can find 10 libraries now that give you collapsable boxes, drag-n-drop, etc. But it gets much more complicated if you want to do something not covered with these libraries.
The big problem being that put very simply: HTML was not designed for full-fledged interfaces. Compare against a beautiful library like Cocoa, and it falls very very short. Which is fine. It's great for what it does.
Java is many ways was supposed to fix this problem. A method to create interfaces that can be spread through web pages. But issues besides just speed have been a problem with Java. AWT was not great for making interfaces, and Swing isn't (IMHO) much better. I haven't tried SWT, but even Eclipse, its flagship, suffers from all types of interface issues (compare it against an IDE like XCode).
I'm trying very hard not to be an Apple fanboi. I've used PCs for most of my life, and Linux for a good enough time (> 10 years). But I've seen enough interface libraries now (GTK+, KDE, Windows API, Javascript hacks, various ones using SDL, etc.) that I've seen both highlights and major downfalls from the different design paradigms used.
One of the largest design issues I've seen comes from at the end of the day from the language itself. Part of A large part of Cocoa's beauty derives from Objective-C. It does things that c++ wouldn't dream of doing for speed reasons. Both Gtk+ and KDE try to replicate features already in Objective-C, but because they are non-native, they don't/can't do it as well. Which is not to say Objective-C is the end-all be-all language -- it's just great for interfaces.
It's also something that from my personal experience Java can't do. So it's hard for me to imagine how using Java to make an interface for web pages will be a great advancement (again, I'm leaving speed issues alone -- this is a purely design argument). And maybe it will be better than AJAX, but that's not a great advancement
I've not had, in 10 years, an easy or simple or quick Java "first time install."
Every single time it has been hard, complex, and slow. This despite wanting it to be good.
I generally have to go visit some download page, figure out which of the myriad Java acronyms I need to install, have it fail, then have to visit the page again and figure out how to do it manually, work at it, fail, and then ultimately, give up. In the very few occasions I've seen it work, there is the infamous Java load time to roll my eyes at.
Contrast with Flash, which I hate, and which I practically have to struggle, to avoid having on my computer.
That is, with Flash apps: I visit, it says, "You need flash," I click on the "OK install Flash thing," and after like 2 seconds, it's installed, and then playing whatever it was I wanted to look at.
After the very first install of Flash, I don't notice that it even loads, at all. I don't even think about it.
Took my browser 5 seconds from clicking on the Slashdot logo, until the page started reloading.
Well, I'm off then. I'll surf away to the other Slashdot...
Oh, wait! I wanted to see the front of Slashdot again, so I actually waited for as long as it took.
Bummer!
The average user will never do that.
It's just confusing to them.. and it has a negative effect on performance when they fiddle with it.
More importantly, it's a change to their desktop which happens outside the browser window in response to going to a web page. Users don't really understand that it is the browser that spawned this.. they think that it was the web page that spawned this, and they understand that web pages shouldn't be able to put icons into their systray.
All in all, it's a dumb idea.. and Sun should have done some user testing to see what the user's reaction to it was.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'm so sick of companies thinking they'll somehow become relevant because they put reminders of their products in every nook and cranny on my system. Sun, like all other half-wit companies, feels the need to put useless tray icons in there to brand the user's computer. You'd think after the Internet's collective hate of RealPlayer they would have learned that the systray is not for advertising. Besides, people don't care what Java is, they want to look at what is on the page. But no, they have to sit there in the tray, completely useless. And lets not discuss needing to run a program 24/7 that monitors for updates to Java, or installing a control panel.
Sorry Java, you're not nearly as important as you think you are. QuickTime commits the same set of sins, which is why I swear by QuickTime Alternative, it is a bit less annoying.
It's the first instantiation that matters.. Applets are so uncommon that the average user will only come across them once per reboot.
And thus it really depends upon how this is used. If its used deep into a page say for something like an online word processor, where you know and expect to be waiting, versus a homepage which you expect to open instantly. Really its up to the developers to use it where it makes the most sense. Sadly few do.
Gee, Flash 9 / Actionscript 3 has all of those features:
* Static strict typing, that throws a runtime error if you try to cast to an incorrect type
* Compiled into bytecode, with a JIT runtime
* Cross-platform (windows, mac, linux and solaris)
sig? uhh, umm, ok
I think he was referring to this site which is the one that most people link to when they want to tell someone to install Java.. because Sun recommends you link to this site.
Anyway, I tried java.com, using Mozilla Firefox, and it gave me this page which is really quite good. One thing I gotta ask though, why is Sun asking me to install an unsigned extension? Why can't they go get a signing certificate already?
How we know is more important than what we know.
If Sun is successful in releasing Java under the GPL, this could end up being an open source alternative to Flash/Flex and Silverlight. All three of them claim to be THE alternative to AJAX.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Security - Javascript is NOT designed to secure a web app, security needs to happen on the server side, out of necessity!
Cross-platform - I would argue that Javascript / ECMAScript, having been standardized and distributed with all major browsers for years, is arguably the MOST supported cross-platform programming language in the world. If a computer has a browser made in the last 5 years, it supports standardized ECMAScript. And what PC doesn't have a browser?
The only incompatibilities I run into on a frequent basis are getting my scripts to create results that look the same across all browsers, and that's not Javascript's fault, it's CSS and browser support of CSS! If you have problems with the [i]functionality[/i] of Javascript, then you're probably not writing according to the well established standards, or worse yet, throwing together snippets of Javascript from all over the web like so many amatuers that give the language a bad rep.
So you would use Sun's solution, rather than the well established internationally standardized ECMAScript?
Programmatic friendlyness - Joel says it all here Personally, I've programmed in dozens of languages, and few are as flexible and enjoyable as Javascript
Javascript used to have the same status that Java applets and Flash still do, used predominantly for play things, small self-contained segments of the browser where you want to do something different. Javascript has risen above that. The world is finally realizing Javascript can be an integral part of an entire website, and that the website as a whole can be enhanced by Javascript and it's tight integration with other web standards.
This article sounds like an attempt to rehype Java applets, which frankly, have not seen the advancement and acceptance that Javascript has over the years.
Actually, he was off by 100%. But that's beside the point.
.net didn't support, or worse when .net just didn't work and you had to dig into the javascript and html mess that your neat little .net app generates to find the problem and fix it.
:)
People may be annoyed by 2, 4 or even higher wait times, but they'll put up with them in the right circumstances without complaint.
Showing people a blank screen, not so much. Show them a progress bar, and they might wait for it; especially if it contains something they need.
The whole 'get it on the screen in 2 seconds or you've lost them' applies to online shopping, product reviews, forums, etc. But people are willing to wait 5-10 or even longer for their bank, their credit card, to file their taxes, to play a game, or to edit a spreadsheet. (As long as the 'start up time' is at START UP, and not after every click.)
If 'web2.0 apps' like gmail took 5-10 seconds to start up, but didn't exhibit the html/javascript flakeyness that would be worth it. And a lot of the load time could be addressed with caching, and having the VM preloaded, if that was the only stumbling block, hell they really are more *application* than *webpage* -- with some browser support they could be ready to go in the background, selected like wii channels or something, for commonly visited 'sites'.
AJAX is a mostly a train wreck on par with the spaghetti code that we inherited from the Basic/C/Cobol era. Html/javascript just wasn't designed for this sort of use. AJAX is like writing multithreaded real-time applications in Windows 3.0 or MacOS9 cooperative threading models... you can do it... and it can even mostly work most of the time if you don't bang on it too hard. But its never going to be great.
asp.net was a decent move forward, as at least it mostly shielded the developer from the ajax mess. Unless you needed to do something
But we *really* need to see a good standards based framework on the browser side, that applications can be written against.
Of course, we've always had Java and ActiveX. But Java was proprietary, and was hampered immensely by Microsofts attempts to discredit it, and embrace/extend/destroy it, including their own incompatible MSJVM, and "Visual J++" version of the language. Plus it was plagued by its own problems. Not to mention that the language itself I always found cumbersome. (I think Microsoft really did a good job with C# by comparison.) And ActiveX? Well, the less said about that plague on mankind the better.
JavaFX, at first blush, looks like it might fit the bill.
But it's still a proprietary platform without free implementations.
Well someone needs to install Debian. :)
;)
sun-java6-plugin gets you everything you need to enjoy the 12 java applets that are on the web.
It doesn't run on an alarm clock, either. Cross-platform means that it can run on more than one platform, not everything known to man.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
Wii - yes (flash 7, lots of sites offer flash games tailored to the wii's interface)
Cell phones - yes ("flash lite", newer phones with FL2 are equivilent to flash 7)
Pocket PC - yes (at least 6)
PSP - yes (6 or 7, not sure)
PS3 - yes (don't know the version offhand, should be at least 7 since wii has that)
sig? uhh, umm, ok
Hellooooo everyone, the issue is not that historically the JVM takes forever to load or that Flash can be annoying. The key trend is that AJAX/Html are hitting a limit, which leads to all this recent energy about Flash/Flex as a better way to construct rich UIs, witness Microsoft's Silverlight.
... well gee it seems historically this has led the winning vendor treat us all like crap. That's a real bummer when you have this expensive time investment in your website, but it's locked in to some vendor's intellectual property. The only other open rich alternative -- SVG + Javascript -- appears a bit dead.
... that would be awesome. Even if the technology is just ok, the openness would make it worthwhile. Just think ... it could work properly on Linux and phones and what have you. This is very much like what happened with HTML originally. Just an ok spec, but the openness catalyzed all sorts of growth and competition.
Now both Flash and Silverlight are totally proprietary. That's a huge problem. If one of them were to "win" and get a zillion developers
So what's neat about this announcement, is that it's a Flash workalike that's OPEN SOURCE. If it were to "win"
Another way this could work out is that it bluffs Adobe into opening up Flash, which I figure would be just as good an outcome. The key is to not be stuck developing your expensive web app, but with some vendor controlling the underlying technology.