Linky:
Comparison: Three 30-Something Lenses - Ned's Photo Journal
In my opinion: they're all great lenses, it just depends on your priority. If bokeh, get the FA31; if macro, get the DA35/2.8; if budget, get the DA35/2.4.
The DA35/2.8 is great if you shoot at smaller apertures. The only reason it isn't on my LBA list is because I tend to shoot in poor lighting, which means large apertures, and the 35/2.8 renders detailed out-of-focus areas with a lot of...busy-ness, I suppose. Simple OOF areas, such as trees and flowers, are okay; moderate to high aperture OOF areas are fine; but detailed OOF areas at large apertures, such as bushes at f/2.8, simply aren't blurred over like I want. That's my photography habit. For other habits, this lens is a marvel.
The DA35/2.4 is a fantastic budget prime. The difference between this lens and any of its betters won't make the difference between a successful image or an unsuccessful one. But you aren't asking about it, so I'll move along.
The FA31. This is the kind of lens I wouldn't mind keeping somewhere, and forty years from now (if I'm still blessed to be alive) I'd take it out and say, "ah, yes, the SLR days were good to us in their way, weren't they?" It is fast, smooth, and its colors seem truer. But I don't own one. Why? Almost nobody who looks at my photos would notice the difference between it and the DA35/2.4, which costs 1/4 to 1/5 as much. I can only notice the difference if I'm looking at the images side-by-side, which if I don't have the lens I won't be. Money for other things is more valuable to me than this lens.