I'm also digging the DSL they have far better than the XML-like thing that JavaFX uses normally.
On 10 November 2017 at 23:12, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > TornadoFX looks very interesting! Thanks for the link! > > (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > > > On Nov 11, 2017, at 13:24, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Using Kotlin could also attract Android developers who were otherwise > stuck > > using Java 6 for years. > > > > As mentioned in an earlier reply, this framework could be useful for > > Kotlin/JavaFX: <https://github.com/edvin/tornadofx> > > > >> On 10 November 2017 at 22:12, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Now that I think of it, all else being equal, the combination of Kotlin > >> and JavaFX may be attractive to get other new developers interested and > >> grow the community... > >> > >> (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > >> > >>> On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:58, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Considering it takes about 2-3 months of daily use of Scala to get > >>> comfortable, perhaps Kotlin would be a better choice. It's a simpler > >>> language and is supposed to be easy for Java developers to pick up. > >>> > >>>> On 10 November 2017 at 19:43, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I don’t know either language but I’d be more interested in learning > >> Kotlin > >>>> than learning Scala. > >>>> > >>>> OTOH I’m not sure how much time I’ll be able to contribute to Chainsaw > >> so > >>>> not sure how much that should count for. > >>>> > >>>> (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves > http://picocli.info > >>>> > >>>>> On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:16, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> That's what I hear. I don't know Kotlin, but I'd certainly be > >> interested > >>>> in > >>>>> learning! (particularly so I can write Gradle builds in a statically > >>>> typed > >>>>> language) > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 10 November 2017 at 19:10, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think Kotlin would be more approachable than Scala... thoughts? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Gary > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10 November 2017 at 16:17, Robert Middleton < > osfan6...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What would the advantage be of using Scala vs just normal Java? > >>>>>>>> Mostly from a curiosity standpoint; I've never done Scala so I > don't > >>>>>>>> know it works. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The main advantage I can see is that most of the developers > >> interested > >>>> in > >>>>>>> working on v3 all prefer to work in Scala. I could go on and on > about > >>>>>> Scala > >>>>>>> over Java, but really, my comparison would all come down to > >> functional > >>>>>>> programming over object oriented programming. When it comes to > shared > >>>>>>> libraries like Log4j, I find Java far more appropriate and work in > >> that > >>>>>>> space. In a GUI application where there is no real public API? I'd > >>>> rather > >>>>>>> work in Scala. Kotlin was another option, but it seems like none of > >> us > >>>>>>> really have experience there. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Did you actually have trouble building? I'm pretty sure that > when I > >>>>>>>> built it a few months ago I simply opened up the project in > Netbeans > >>>>>>>> and it built immediately as a maven project(although looking at > the > >>>>>>>> POM it does look like it uses ant on the backend for some reason). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Building the project is simple enough. I had issues with: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. Running mvn clean install does not work by default unless you > run > >>>> "mvn > >>>>>>> site:site" before running "mvn install". > >>>>>>> 2. Doesn't build in Java 9. > >>>>>>> 3. The maven-release-plugin is not configured at all, so I had to > do > >>>> all > >>>>>>> release steps by hand instead. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
