Making wxPython a standard module?

[Colin J. Williams]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-06-14, Diez B. Roggisch <deets at nospam.web.de> wrote:
> 
>>>> And on a personal note: I find it *buttugly*.
>>> Do you mind explaining "why" you find it *buttugly*?
> 
> [...]
> 
>> For the curious: Not the look & feel (albeit I prefer KDE on
>> linux over Gnome, which is a Qt/GTK thing and thus affects wx
>> look & feel as well), but the code & the designers.
> 
> I've never used any of the designers, but I agree 100% that
> wxPython code is nasty ugly. wxPython has a very un-Pythonic
> API that's is, IMO, difficult to use.  The API isn't really
> Robin Dunn's fault: wxPython is a very thin wrapper around
> wxWidgets, so it largely retains the same nasty low-level C++
> API that wxWidgets has.  I presume much of wxPython is
> generated in some automated fasion (a la swing).  There have
> been a couple attempts to wrap wxPython in a cleaner, more
> Pythonic API, but they've have limited success (wax is the one
> I can think of off the top of my head).

WAX doesn't seem to have been maintained 
since 2004.

Colin W.
>