Implicit initialization is EVIL!

[rantingrick]

On Jul 5, 6:20 pm, Chris Angelico <ros... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:42 AM, rantingrick <rantingr... at gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > On Jul 5, 11:00 am, Web Dreamer <webdrea... at nospam.fr> wrote:
> >> What he means is that On Mac, if you close "all" windows, the application is
> >> still running.
>
> > Then that is NOT closing windows that is only ICONIFIYING/HIDING them.
> > Let's use the correct lingo people!
>
> Actually, it IS closing those windows. Why wouldn't it be?
> [...]
> The memory used by that window can be reclaimed. Handles to its
> objects are no longer valid. The window really is closed. The
> application might not have terminated, but that window has not been
> minimized - the *window* is closed.

And you need the OS to that for you!?!? Are you joking?

> I could conceivably write a program that sits invisibly in the
> background until a network message arrives. Upon receipt of such a
> message, the program initializes the GUI subsystem and opens a window.
> When the user closes the window, the program flushes all GUI code out
> of memory and waits for the next message. While it's waiting, is there
> any "main window" that exists but has just been hidden? No. But is the
> application still running? Of course! Completely separate.

And so could i using Tkinter and it's "supposedly" flawed window
hierarchy. Remind me again why we are discussing this?