Apparently JavaFX didnt die as we all thought back when Oracle spit it out of the JDK, they will happily offer support for it now, but who wants to be in bed with Oracle.
That looks really sleek. One thing JavaFX got right was CSS support.
It seems more Oracle than Gluon: <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/graphs/contributors" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/graphs/contributors
Oh hmm, I'm honestly not super sure then. I know Gluon is the one that's seemingly has a business providing JavaFX support, while Oracle.. as far as I know doesn't offer a license or anything services in that direction? But I could be wrong. Gluon is mentioned in the article.. they have a very Qt-style confusing licensing situation where it's probably all free.. but you're never quite sure :)
The whole space is a lot more icky than one would like it to be.. Which is unfortunate b/c while it doesn't have a billion features, it's a nice composable reactive framework to use (at least from cljfx/clojure)
There was a time Oracle decided it wasn't worth the investment, note that it started as E3 scripting under Sun and it was only finalised after the acquisition.
So a few Java champions took over it at Gluon.
Then when Java 26 was released, Oracle reintroduced support for JavaFX,
Oh huh, I guess it's pretty recent news. I wonder if it'll lead to new features.
It's nice to see people are working on Native builds for instance,
and that Graal integration is now an official priority of sorts.
I don't think this is an accurate assessment. Oracle has its flaws and closet full of dead bodies/skeletons, but they've been good stewards of the JDK and JavaFX overall. Gluon and Oracle have done tremendous amount of work with JavaFX.
Splitting it off the JDK was definitely the correct call. It's a Desktop UI framework, it should not be bound to JDK releases.
Their move from javafxports to graalvm left me dead in the water for android hardware support. Nobody was going to replace the hardware we were running on any time soon, so had to ditch them.
giancarlostoro · · focus · HN ↗
That looks really sleek. One thing JavaFX got right was CSS support.
geokon · · focus · HN ↗
pron · · focus · HN ↗
reactordev · · focus · HN ↗
geokon · · focus · HN ↗
The whole space is a lot more icky than one would like it to be.. Which is unfortunate b/c while it doesn't have a billion features, it's a nice composable reactive framework to use (at least from cljfx/clojure)
pjmlp · · focus · HN ↗
There was a time Oracle decided it wasn't worth the investment, note that it started as E3 scripting under Sun and it was only finalised after the acquisition.
So a few Java champions took over it at Gluon.
Then when Java 26 was released, Oracle reintroduced support for JavaFX,
<a href="https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/oracle-releases-java-26-2026-03-17/" rel="nofollow">https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/oracle-releases-jav...
geokon · · focus · HN ↗
_benj · · focus · HN ↗
pjmlp · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://insights.linuxfoundation.org/project/openjdk-jdk/contributors?timeRange=past365days&start=2025-09-22&end=2026-09-22" rel="nofollow">https://insights.linuxfoundation.org/project/openjdk-jdk/con...
exabrial · · focus · HN ↗
Splitting it off the JDK was definitely the correct call. It's a Desktop UI framework, it should not be bound to JDK releases.
jfyi · · focus · HN ↗
That was forever ago, maybe it improved.