Wheel-reinvention with Python

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:54:59 +0200, Torsten Bronger <bronger at physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>Hallöchen!
>
>Calvin Spealman <ironfroggy at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The choice is GUI toolkits is largely seperate from
>> Python. Consider that they are just bindings to libraries that are
>> developed completely seperate of the language. GUI is should be
>> seperate from the language, and thus not bound to same
>> expectations and desires as elements of the language itself.
>
>I disagree.  A modern language must provide a convenient and
>well-embedded way to write GUI applications.  This is not a sign of
>decadence, but a very good promotional argument.  Delphi and first
>and foremost VB are extremely popular, and it's sad to see that
>Python could get a lot more of the cake if the efforts for IDEs and
>toolkits were somewhat streamlined.  Besides, all other already good
>aspects of Python wouldn't suffer at all.
>
>Tkinter fits into Python very well and it is very easily (if not
>trivially) accessible for users of our applications.  People
>complain about non-native look-and-feel on Windows, but sorry, I
>simply find it unacceptably ugly on all platforms.  Don't
>misunderstand me: I don't like neat GUI effects just for the sake of
>it but Tkinter makes an outdated impression on the end-user.
>
>I've been having a closer look at wxPython which is not Pythonic at
>all and bad documented.

Tkinter is hardly brilliantly documented, IMO.

> Probably I'll use it nevertheless.  PyGTK
>and PyQt may have their own advantages and disadvantages.
>
>However, in my opinion we don't need yet another binding so thin
>that C or C++ is shining through, but a modern replacement for
>Tkinter with its Pythonic way of thinking.

How about sometihing with the same API as Tkinter (so no need to 
relearn), but which looks prettier? Would that fix your gripes?

-- 
Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk