Tkinter and WCK (was Re: How come wxPython isn't in the standard library?)

[Peter Hansen]

Jon Perez wrote:
> I think there's another reason not to standardize on
> wxPython and it's that its API is not at all pythonic.
> It reminds me too much of a C++ API.
> 
> Tkinter's is far easier to use and learn. (PyGtk would be
> 2nd while PyQt's API, in my experience is just as C++-like and
> hard to understand as wxPython's)

This appears to be a matter of opinion.  I found Tkinter
very difficult to understand, and never did get to the point
where I could just write code with it, always spending my
time frustrated with things not doing what I thought they
were supposed to do and having a hard time finding examples
that matched my goals.

Strangely enough, given how often people complain about wxPython's
documentation, I didn't really find Tkinter much better.

> Tkinter's two real cons are that:
> a) it is [supposed to be] ugly (but see my replies below)
> b) it is an additional layer and thus slow

I also concede both of those points.

In a nutshell, it's very clear from the past discussions in
this forum that *both* frameworks have a place, along with
(apparently, though I've not used it) PyQT and some of the
less mature efforts that are trying to build on top of one
or more of these.

This is an area where one solution will never please everybody,
so asking for wxPython to go into the standard library is
pointless.  Tkinter is there already so leave it be, but use
whatever you find to be most effective.

-Peter