Sigh. I had such high hopes for it, and then Oracle abandoned it.
But we are trying it, and opinions (internal to my company) are varied. Some people like it, but I don't.
Because
(a) it has missing functionality here and there
(b) it still has a long road to go to become battle-hardened
(c) I don't see any of the current supporters having deep enough pockets to fix (a) and (b)
So we're taking a mostly wait-and-see attitude.
But we have an existing deep and wide investment in Swing in our products, so our risk profile is probably somewhat different to yours.
> Sigh. I had such high hopes for it, and then Oracle abandoned it.
As far as I'm aware, it was only pulled from the JVM into a separate dependency, as did several other components, in order to keep the JVM slim. Are you saying development on it stopped altogether?
Sometimes a setup like that is the best setup possible, no ambitious team trying to make their mark by replacing something that doesn't require replacing or that they can't replace well enough. I doubt that JavaFX would have more impact if they put a team of dozens on it (or, shudder, hundreds) but they would surely make life harder for those who still build on FX. A larger team might have already declared javaFX dead entirely, urging everyone to port to some exciting new javaFY and losing many of the remaining users in the process, without attracting any new ones. Arguably Swing to FX was already a bit like that.
It's not easy to get JavaFX working for development and it's tricky to get it bundled properly for deployment. I can see why they wanted to split out big parts of Java but I think it does discourage developers from using the library.