Talk about OPENJFX's future

[javafx at use.startmail.com]

Two items  for us

1) focus on bug-free functionality over new features. 
2) require a U.S. $50.00 a year fee per corporate entity for commercial 
application usage. This is very reasonable and  would finally secure 
JavaFX's future as a development platform.  

I feel without 2) above we will find ourselves wandering around 
cyberspace hoping for a benefactor or the charity of volunteers and 
their spare time. 

hth. 
 
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 5:52 AM, John-Val Rose 
<johnvalrose at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> That video is typical marketing “smoke and mirrors”.
> 
> With no access to the code of either app, it is simply unfair and 
> disingenuous to claim a performance advantage.
> 
> I am certain I could post an almost identical comparison video where 
> the results would be the complete opposite.
> 
> Yeah, good programmers can write slow code (especially if you have a 
> motive)...
> 
> On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:29, Johan Vos <johan.vos at gluonhq.com> wrote:
>  
>>> We can't defeat QT in performance, but we can defeat it at 
>>> applicability
>>> and just don't get too far behind QT in performance. (bad example
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh6K-yEp_JY)
>>>  
>> That video demonstrates the creator has absolutely no development 
>> skills in
>> Java, or he intentionally misleads the viewer. I leave it to the 
>> reader to
>> judge what would be worst.
>> 
>> I am not going to make performance statements without numbers, but 
>> my first
>> observations using JavaFX 11 with the Bellsoft Liberica VM are very
>> encouraging (see 
>> https://gluonhq.com/javafx-11-early-access-on-embedded/)
>> 
>> - Johan