WxPython versus Tkinter.

[Robert Kern]

On 1/26/11 10:00 AM, Emile van Sebille wrote:
> On 1/25/2011 10:08 PM Octavian Rasnita said...
>> From: "Emile van Sebille" <emile at fenx.com>
>>>> Why is WxPython ineligible?
>>>
>>> I think Terry's point was compatibility with python3 -- which wx
>>> apparently isn't yet.
>>>
>>> Emile
>>
>>
>> Well, I didn't know this, and it is a valid reason.
>> This means that it is true that there is no enough maintainance force to
>> keep WxPython updated.
>> Did I understand correctly?
>
> Not at all -- wxPython is an active funded ongoing project. Review the roadmap
> at http://wiki.wxpython.org/TentativeRoadmap and particularly the final
> paragraph on Python3.x support.

That's not Terry's point. The reasons he's referring to (and stated previously) 
are as follows:

1. The license of wxWidgets and wxPython is not as permissive as Python's. The 
Python developers, as a matter of policy, do not want to include code into the 
standard library that is less permissive than the current license.

2. The Python developers require someone to commit to maintaining contributed 
code for a number of years. No one has done so. See reason #3.

3. The wxPython developers do not want wxPython in the standard library, not 
least because they want to develop and release wxPython at a different pace and 
release cycle than the standard library.

4. The Python developers have committed to maintaining backwards compatibility 
in the standard library for a very long time. Even if they included wxPython 
into the standard library, they would have to provide a Tkinter module that 
works like the current one. I do not believe it is feasible to write a Tkinter 
workalike that uses wxPython, so we would still be relying on Tcl/Tk.

There is certainly enough maintenance force to keep wxPython updated and ported 
to Python 3, but only *outside* of the standard library.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco