how about JavaFX section in Game APIs & Engines

[princec]

@sproingie

My favorite part about WebGL is how it’s going to expose whatever driver bugs are out there to arbitrary code off the internet. And in kernel mode at that. You really think they write 3d graphics drivers with security in mind?

That’s why MS won’t support it. That said… OpenGL drivers are supposed to execute in user mode, unlike DX drivers.

Cas

[gouessej]

@Spasi

FUD = generalizations like “omg 2 fps to display a teapot, WebGL sucks”. You don’t need to lecture me about Javascript’s shortcomings, I know more about it than you think.

ps. It’s noone’s fault you test with shitty blacklisted drivers. I’m on AMD/Firefox too and I can run different WebGL samples in a dozen tabs without any problems.
ps2. What makes you think I read any of your articles?

At first, you make some conclusions about me without reading my article that I used as a reference to provide more elaborate explanations than “omg 2 fps to display a teapot, WebGL sucks”. Therefore, you’re simply wrong, “FUD” is not the appropriate term in this case. Secondly, official free open source and proprietary drivers of these graphics cards are not “shitty”, especially for the Nvidia Quadro FX 5000 and all Java bindings for OpenGL don’t blacklist tons of drivers unlike Google and Mozilla do, I still think it is abusive. If we blacklisted graphics cards as reliable as the Nvidia Quadro FX 5000 in JOGL, then it would be logical to blacklist all graphics cards of the world.

I have never said that you don’t know Javascript. However, you seem not to understand that we pay to have Dell machines with certified OpenGL drivers (for Windows AND Redhat Linux), it is why I even question criteria leading to blacklist drivers.

[princec]

Julien - the drivers aren’t blacklisted randomly: they are blacklisted because they have bugs in them that cause the browser either to crash, perform very slowly, or have security flaws. Reliable as you think the drivers may be, Google have rather more resource than you to prove it one way or the other.

Cas

[gouessej]

@princec

Julien - the drivers aren’t blacklisted randomly: they are blacklisted because they have bugs in them that cause the browser either to crash, perform very slowly, or have security flaws. Reliable as you think the drivers may be, Google have rather more resource than you to prove it one way or the other.

I don’t say that the drivers are blacklisted randomly, I said that the criteria are questionable and Kenneth Bradley Russell (a major engineer working on WebGL for Google) said that he can’t test on all graphics cards. Google can be wrong, its size does not mean that it can always be right and prove it. I wrote a bug report about this problem, we will probably get some information soon. Nvidia Quadro FX 5000 is used by default on Dell high end professional computers, we are not speaking about a crappy low end Intel chipset.

[princec]

I think they’re playing it safe rightly because of the security implications. It might actually be a whitelist and a blacklist they use. I could ask Ken a bit more about it.

Cas

[Cero]

On a related note, Carmack expressed his fears of WebGL at QuakeCon 2012

I hear designing GUI apps with C# is much more easy and fun - might be because there are these helper to draw and move buttons and stuff, to do it visually rather than code, like visual basic and stuff
which I would like

however I’m sure that these things exist for java too, but I only know of some netbeans plugin thing - however since I’m not a gui developer per se, I may just be uninformed.

[Danny02]

After developing some C# GUI applications for a while now(1year :)) I have to say it is in some way a little bit neater then Java swing.
After taking a look at JavaFX 2, I think JavaFX is more cleaner and better(because of Java^^, C’/.Net is really bad) then WPF for C#, but it does not have the syntax sugar C# has with its Delegates and Propertys.
Also the IDE support is not so good for JavaFX compared to WPF(when using the XML definitions) atm.

I think with Java 8 lambdas Java will have all the sytanx sugar it needs to be a better platform for Desktop GUIs then WPF. (using lambda functíons for ActionListeners)

[gouessej]

@princec

I think they’re playing it safe rightly because of the security implications. It might actually be a whitelist and a blacklist they use. I could ask Ken a bit more about it.

Cas

Kenneth has just replied that he uses FBOs in WebGL and my graphics cards are too old (even the Nvidia Quadro 5000 released 2 years ago).

[princec]

You sure the Quadro 5000 doesn’t have FBOs? The Q5000 has OpenGL 4.2 drivers and I think FBOs have been around since OpenGL 3.0.

Cas

[Spasi]

@Danny02

After developing some C# GUI applications for a while now(1year :)) I have to say it is in some way a little bit neater then Java swing.
After taking a look at JavaFX 2, I think JavaFX is more cleaner and better(because of Java^^, C’/.Net is really bad) then WPF for C#, but it does not have the syntax sugar C# has with its Delegates and Propertys.
Also the IDE support is not so good for JavaFX compared to WPF(when using the XML definitions) atm.

I think with Java 8 lambdas Java will have all the sytanx sugar it needs to be a better platform for Desktop GUIs then WPF. (using lambda functíons for ActionListeners)

Keep in mind that post-JDK7 Java developers have access to dozens of scripting languages and also type-safe languages that let you write custom DSLs (ScalaFX for example).

IDE support is not critical for JavaFX atm, the JavaFX Scene Builder is very well-made and lets you export to FXML. Also, ScenicView is amazing, makes GUI debugging so much easier. A must-have for anyone trying to learn JavaFX.