Which GUI?

[Phil Mayes]

Cameron Laird wrote in message
<90041EE28E4B778A.B7E5C38CAFBFC6FD.1FE0A06FDC52F8CF at lp.airnews.net>...
>In article <88jg9f$ssd$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>,  <ndev42 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like pro and cons for the different GUI's
>>
>>I would like to add:
>>
>>Is there any GUI toolkit that supports the following
>>requirements?
>>
>>- As portable as Python.
> .
> .
> .
>No.  'Never will be.  Python is magnificently portable.  It's
>really, *really* good in this regard.  I propose that there
>will NEVER be a GUI toolkit that handles WinCE, QNX, MacOS,
>NeXT, BeOS, ... with comparable comfort.


And that is because Python sits on top of C, which has had 25 years to learn
how to be portable.  If the GUI portion of a program is 75% of its
complexity,
that means the GUI portion of an OS is 3x the complexity of the files/
sockets/threads/processes core.

ndev42 also wanted the toolkit:
>- Does not need ANY extra library to compile, i.e. knows
>  how to talk to the underlying windowing library underneath,
>  whether it is X11, Motif, Windows or Mac.

Because abstracting the GUI is such a huge task, I think a monolithic
approach
would be a waste of effort.  Adopting a toolkit and automagically installing
it is the way to go, and Python has done that with tcl/tk (at least, the
Windows install gives that option; maybe other installs don't).
--
Phil Mayes    pmayes AT olivebr DOT com