Link Details

I honestly don't understand what's with all these down votes. These days it is rare to have a healthy discussion about the Java ecosystem like in the good old days of JavaLobby.

"Now I haven't done real Flash development, but I've created Flash pages. This is because Flash Professional makes it relatively easy."

LOL, the writer has no idea why people use flash instead of Java.

Those barking JavaFx in that link, they will never understand the core of the problem, The problem is Java VM. What is the size and speed of Flash VM ?

I hated JVM from the day one, anything that slows down the machines is a problem, Vista is the best recent example of this one.

If you think that there is a fundamental problem with the JVM, think again. It is extremely well suited for running large applications. Flash is great for the user interface of an application, but the typical architecture of a business Flash/Flex application involves a Java back-end on the server for all the business logic.

From my knowledge, the Flash VM = low footprint, limited scalability and Java VM = medium footprint, excellent scalability.

So the JVM isn't really good for handling small desktop applications efficiently (high cold start-up times, limited memory sharing across JVM instances). And by JVM I mean all the implementations from various vendors: Sun, IBM, Oracle, Apple.

If you are looking for reasons you'll see that all vendors are very large corporations and they probably could not find a business advantage for optimizing the JVM for downwards scalability. Adobe on the other hand needs the image boost provided by the large number of Flash VM installs and is struggling to move it upmarket and enter in the server-side market.

But you still cant figure out why Javafx fails to compete with flash.

Existence of Javafx is a joke for its purpose. Unless someone creates a UI only JVM.

JavaFX is just another Java technology running on the JVM and encountering the same downwards scalability issue.

LOL