The competition

[Randahl Fink Isaksen]

Dan, I completely disagree with your analysis. Richard has already asked you to provide documentation to back up your performance claims, and I have the following to add:

Your claim: Web is […] a deployment model that is seamless across more platforms.
– My input: You are right that deployment of web apps feels easy, but truly ensuring that the deployment actually works for all users on all platforms is all but a trivial task. There are literally hundreds of different web browser brands and versions out there, and the fact that you tested your latest web app on the two latest versions of a couple of browsers, gives you no guarantee that the web app works for all of the target audience. Have a look at this list, that documents the insanity of the web deployment challenge: http://www.useragentstring.com/pages/Browserlist/.
The truth is that some web developers close their eyes to the heterogeneous nature of the deployment environment, and simply define their target audience as "users who use the latest version of Internet Explorer on Windows". That may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling of simplicity and ease of deployment, but in reality it just means that your web app is most likely broken for everyone who falls outside your defined target audience. Knowing that all of your desktop users run Oracle's version of Java is a way better than knowing that all of your users run either Internet Explorer or Chrome or Safari or Firefox or yet another browser.

Your claim: [JavaFX is] based on established, type-safe java […] However there is little benefit to users [in this].
– My input: Everyone who has tried debugging a web application with more than 20.000 lines of JavaScript code knows that the lack of compile-time checks and type safety means JavaScript is more error prone. More errors means more time spent on debugging and less time spent on providing new features or improving the overall product quality. I hope you agree that users prefer robust, feature rich, high quality applications.

Your claim: Should [JavaFX] not gain market space before the [HTML5] era truly establishes itself then [JavaFX] is unlikely to ever make it […].
– My input: On the one hand you are saying that HTML 5 has not truly established itself, even though it was first published 5 years ago, but still you claim HTML5 is the likely winner. Then on the other hand you move on to claiming that Java based JavaFX (meaning JavaFX 2.x) has to win the race in its first 2 years of existence in order to make it. I think it is worth noting that new software projects start every day, and many of them will choose the technology that best suits their needs. Remember when Windows was the all dominating operating system and people thought no one else had a chance? What happened? Remember when Internet Explorer was the all dominating browser and people thought no one else had a chance? What happened? Remember when Nokia was the all dominating cell phone manufacturer in Europe and Apple had not even made a phone yet? What happened? Remember when gasoline was the all dominating propellant for cars and people thought electric cars had no chance? What is happening right now?

All in all, I believe time will show that both HTML5 and JavaFX will have huge success. It all comes down to understanding the strengths of each technology, and knowing which technology best matches the exact requirements of the app you are building.

Randahl





On Nov 30, 2012, at 16:42 , Daniel Zwolenski <zonski at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's the space that oracle doesn't care about but just for reference here's some stuff that web are doing:
> 
> http://blog.alexmaccaw.com/the-next-web
> 
> My analysis of this market segment, for what it is worth:
> 
> Web is moving faster than jfx, with a head start in a lot of areas, with big backing from all vendors and a deployment model that is seamless across more platforms. 
> 
> Jfx being based on established, type-safe java and having all the java libraries/tools makes it a big draw card for developers compared to jscript. However there is little benefit to users and it is users who will drive the choice of technology. Feature wise jfx and web are generally on par - in many cases web is better but generally in areas not fully standardized yet so limited to certain browsers etc. Standardization is happening quickly in web unlike the days of old. In general web is improving faster than the current jfx road map. 
> 
> In JFX's favour is the java brand and libraries from java's dominance in the server space. Java's reputation plus one-language/WORA end to end are the key selling points for jfx. 
> 
> One-language/WORA is currently a perceived advantage only since jfx does not work on as many platforms as web and it is only server side that jscript does not currently compete. Developers are starting to realize that jfx is not delivering on wora and business decision makers are unlikely to be convinced by developers without WORA as a selling point. 
> 
> Several early forays of jscript into the server space have already happened with some minor success. Expect this to be a growth area and the wora/one-language advantage could switch, making it one of the draw cards of jscript over jfx within the next 12 months (though java on the server is likely to dominate for many years still through pure momentum and market position). Jscript is also being enhanced to have more appeal to developers, however it has a lot of legacy perceptions to overcome before it will appeal to traditional server developers. 
> 
> Performance is also a perceived advantage of jfx (web is currently perceived as slow, whereas as 'desktop' is seen as fast) however in practice jfx is no faster than modern browsers and web is increasingly improving performance. The perceived advantage will be short lived especially with windows 8 driving more pc upgrades and the inevitable drop off of ie7 and ie8 (responsible for most of the negative performance opinions). Web is rapidly addressing its perceived performance issues. 
> 
> The mobile space is currently still open. The technology that provides good cross-mobile development will dominate here. Existing solutions like phone gap have had mixed success. WORA is the selling point but poor user experience and performance are the main complaints. Jscript based solutions are improving however and there are a number of vendors targeting this space. Phones typically have a 2 to 3 year life cycle so as we start to see the drop off of older android devices, jscript solutions will become more performant and user friendly. 
> 
> Javafx has a small window, maybe 12 months at most, of opportunity to capture some of the consumer market space. Mobile is particularly open but web is also in a transition state and some aggressive positioning could see jfx capitalize on the java brand to establish itself before web achieves its current trajectory. Claiming some market space now coupled with java server dominance could see jfx survive the onslaught of html5 frenzy. 
> 
> Deployment is currently the number one inhibitor to both the web and mobile space. A good deployment model is needed on major platforms to have broad range appeal. 
> 
> Should javafx not gain market space before the "html5" era truly establishes itself then jfx is unlikely to ever make it into the consumer space in its current form. It is likely to continue to have some market share in select back-office environments (particularly those that oracle is directly working with) and may spread a little wider if alternate deployment solutions such as running javafx ontop of jscript, or compiling to jscript are implemented. 
> 
> In the embedded space, java and javafx is well positioned with hardware/technology at the sweet point for embedded jre usage. Expect this to be a growth area over the next few years with javafx likely to dominate this space. 
> 
> 
> 
>