468,765 Members | 1,128 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,765 developers. It's quick & easy.

Cross-platform GUI development

I've been programming in Python for 5 or more years now and whenever I
want a quick-n-dirty GUI, I use Tkinter. This is partly because it's
the first toolkit I learnt, but also because it's part of the standard
Python distribution and therefore easy to get Python apps to work
cross platform - it usually requires almost no porting effort.

However, when I need a little bit more grunt, I tend to turn to Tix,
which I thought was also fairly standard. However, this week, I wrote
a Tix application under Linux which I'd really like to work on Mac OS
and it's proving fairly painful to get it going. There is no Tix in
the standard fink or apt repositories and when I download a tar-ball,
it wouldn't build because it had a lot of unmet dependencies. I then
read a post which said that only Tkinter/Python people really use Tix
anymore and people in tcl/tk moved onto better toolkits long ago.

My question is if Tix is old hat, what is the GUI toolkit I *should*
be using for quick-n-dirty cross platform GUI development? I guess
this is tangentially related to:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ed0d40ffd0b1c0

I hope this isn't a stupid question. I'm wearing flame retardant
underwear.

Peter

Oct 12 '07 #1
29 1773
On Oct 12, 10:13 am, "psaff...@googlemail.com"
<psaff...@googlemail.comwrote:
I've been programming in Python for 5 or more years now and whenever I
want a quick-n-dirty GUI, I use Tkinter. This is partly because it's
the first toolkit I learnt, but also because it's part of the standard
Python distribution and therefore easy to get Python apps to work
cross platform - it usually requires almost no porting effort.

However, when I need a little bit more grunt, I tend to turn to Tix,
which I thought was also fairly standard. However, this week, I wrote
a Tix application under Linux which I'd really like to work on Mac OS
and it's proving fairly painful to get it going. There is no Tix in
the standard fink or apt repositories and when I download a tar-ball,
it wouldn't build because it had a lot of unmet dependencies. I then
read a post which said that only Tkinter/Python people really use Tix
anymore and people in tcl/tk moved onto better toolkits long ago.

My question is if Tix is old hat, what is the GUI toolkit I *should*
be using for quick-n-dirty cross platform GUI development? I guess
this is tangentially related to:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....thread/thread/...

I hope this isn't a stupid question. I'm wearing flame retardant
underwear.

Peter
Personnaly, I use PyQt simply because I prefere Qt to Gtk, witch is
much more integrated with all desktop than Gtk.
In fact, your application in Qt on Mac, Win or Linux look like a
native app.

Just a question of "feeling" I think; because most of those GUI
framework, offer quiet the same functionality.

Oct 12 '07 #2
Alexandre Badez <al*************@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 12, 10:13 am, "psaff...@googlemail.com"
<psaff...@googlemail.comwrote:
My question is if Tix is old hat, what is the GUI toolkit I *should*
be using for quick-n-dirty cross platform GUI development? I guess
this is tangentially related to:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....thread/thread/...

Personnaly, I use PyQt simply because I prefere Qt to Gtk, witch is
much more integrated with all desktop than Gtk.
In fact, your application in Qt on Mac, Win or Linux look like a
native app.
I'd recommend wxPython over those becase

1) native look and feel on all platforms
2) doesn't require expensive licensing for non-commercial apps (QT)
3) Isn't a pain to install on windows (GTK)

That said, times change and 1-3 may have changed since I last looked
at it!

--
Nick Craig-Wood <ni**@craig-wood.com-- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick
Oct 12 '07 #3
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:13:29 +0200, ps******@googlemail.com
<ps******@googlemail.comwrote:
I've been programming in Python for 5 or more years now and whenever I
want a quick-n-dirty GUI, I use Tkinter. This is partly because it's
the first toolkit I learnt, but also because it's part of the standard
Python distribution and therefore easy to get Python apps to work
cross platform - it usually requires almost no porting effort.

However, when I need a little bit more grunt, I tend to turn to Tix,
which I thought was also fairly standard. However, this week, I wrote
a Tix application under Linux which I'd really like to work on Mac OS
and it's proving fairly painful to get it going. There is no Tix in
the standard fink or apt repositories and when I download a tar-ball,
it wouldn't build because it had a lot of unmet dependencies. I then
read a post which said that only Tkinter/Python people really use Tix
anymore and people in tcl/tk moved onto better toolkits long ago.

My question is if Tix is old hat, what is the GUI toolkit I *should*
be using for quick-n-dirty cross platform GUI development?
Since you're already used to Tkinter, I'd say: just wait... tcl/tk 8.5 is
on the way and it will bring a lot of new and long-awaited widgets, along
with native look on most platforms. See here:
http://wiki.tcl.tk/14796
and here for the look:
http://tktable.sf.net/tile/

Note that there are already Tkinter wrappers for these widgets, but they
may not be the ones that'll end up in the official distribution. If you
want to play with them, you can find them here:
https://sourceforge.net/project/show...roup_id=165637
(download tkinter-wrappers)

If you want to use these, you'll of course also need the latest beta of
tcl/tk 8.5, downloadable from here:
http://www.tcl.tk/software/tcltk/8.5.html
I hope this isn't a stupid question. I'm wearing flame retardant
underwear.
You won't need these much around here... ;-)

HTH
--
python -c "print ''.join([chr(154 - ord(c)) for c in
'U(17zX(%,5.zmz5(17l8(%,5.Z*(93-965$l7+-'])"
Oct 12 '07 #4
On 10/12/07, ps******@googlemail.com <ps******@googlemail.comwrote:
My question is if Tix is old hat, what is the GUI toolkit I *should*
be using for quick-n-dirty cross platform GUI development?
I would heartily recommend Dabo (http://dabodev.com). It wraps the
wxPython toolkit, but eliminates 99% of the hassle in dealing with the
C++ feel of wxPython. And while it is supposed to be for
database-related apps, it works great for UI-only apps, which is what
I use it for.

--

# p.d.
Oct 12 '07 #5
On 2007-10-12, Alexandre Badez <al*************@gmail.comwrote:
Personnaly, I use PyQt simply because I prefere Qt to Gtk,
witch is much more integrated with all desktop than Gtk.
So you're claiming Qt is much more integrated with Gnome than
Gtk? The mind wobbles. The Gnome and XFCE desktops are _built_
using Gtk. A machine running a Gnome or XFCE desktop doesn't
even need to have Qt installed. The same can be said for
various other deskops (openstep, equinox, etc. -- most of them
other than KDE, actually).
In fact, your application in Qt on Mac, Win or Linux look like
a native app.
Qt sure doesn't look native on my Linux machines, and it's not
going to look native on any GTK-based desktops such an Gnome or
XFCE. Qt will only look native on Linux machines running a Qt
based desktop such as KDE.
Just a question of "feeling" I think; because most of those
GUI framework, offer quiet the same functionality.
I use wxPython, because it uses Gtk on Linux, and Gtk is
"native" for both me and for my Windows users.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! My Aunt MAUREEN was a
at military advisor to IKE &
visi.com TINA TURNER!!
Oct 12 '07 #6
On 2007-10-12, BlueBird <ph**@freehackers.orgwrote:
>I'd recommend wxPython over those becase

1) native look and feel on all platforms
Not true for KDE or other non-Gtk desktops.
You get it with PyQt as well.
Not true for Gnome or other non-Qt desktops.

There is no single "native look and feel" for Linux systems.

There are about a half-dozen different widget sets (Gtk and Qt
being the two big ones).

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! !! I am having fun!!!
at
visi.com
Oct 12 '07 #7
On 2007-10-12, Grant Edwards <gr****@visi.comwrote:
I use wxPython, because it uses Gtk on Linux, and Gtk is
"native" for both me and for my Windows users.
I didn't state that very well.

What I meant was that wxPython uses Gtk under Linux (which is
native for me) so wxPython looks native for both me and my
Windows users.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I demand IMPUNITY!
at
visi.com
Oct 12 '07 #8
ps******@googlemail.com wrote:
>
My question is if Tix is old hat, what is the GUI toolkit I *should*
be using for quick-n-dirty cross platform GUI development? I guess
this is tangentially related to:
What widgets are you using in Tix? They may be available in BWidgets,
Tablelist, or other script-level Tk exetensions (i.e. they do not
require compiliaton). Wrappers for many of these are available at the
Tkinter wiki (http://tkinter.unpythonic.net/wiki/FrontPage)

--Kevin

--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
Oct 12 '07 #9
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:30:13 -0500, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:

3) Isn't a pain to install on windows (GTK)
pygtk is easy to install on windows if you use cygwin.

I started developing a little ssh GUI frontend on a windows laptop using
cygwin pygtk and cygwin openssh. When I moved it over to a Linux VMware
on the same laptop to finish it, the code Just Worked.
Oct 12 '07 #10
Alexandre Badez wrote:
Personnaly, I use PyQt simply because I prefere Qt to Gtk, witch is
much more integrated with all desktop than Gtk.
In fact, your application in Qt on Mac, Win or Linux look like a
native app.
Qt doesn't look very native on my desktop. In fact, Qt apps have always
looked out of place on a Gnome desktop.

On Windows and Mac, no question, they look pretty native. You do have
to take pains to make the app "feel" native, though. Like follow the UI
guidelines of the platform, etc.
>
Just a question of "feeling" I think; because most of those GUI
framework, offer quiet the same functionality.
>
Oct 13 '07 #11
Hello,

I would recommend pyGTK http://www.pygtk.org/
- your app does look the same on all platform (like for Tkinter) (This
argurment apply if the same user would like to run the same app on
different platform and thus do not want to see something different on
each platform...)
- easy to install on all platform:
An all in one installed exist for windows:
http://aruiz.typepad.com/siliconisla...ne_win32_.html
- it looks nice and simple (it is originally the Gimp toolkit).

Just my two cents,

David
2007/10/12, ps******@googlemail.com <ps******@googlemail.com>:
I've been programming in Python for 5 or more years now and whenever I
want a quick-n-dirty GUI, I use Tkinter. This is partly because it's
the first toolkit I learnt, but also because it's part of the standard
Python distribution and therefore easy to get Python apps to work
cross platform - it usually requires almost no porting effort.

However, when I need a little bit more grunt, I tend to turn to Tix,
which I thought was also fairly standard. However, this week, I wrote
a Tix application under Linux which I'd really like to work on Mac OS
and it's proving fairly painful to get it going. There is no Tix in
the standard fink or apt repositories and when I download a tar-ball,
it wouldn't build because it had a lot of unmet dependencies. I then
read a post which said that only Tkinter/Python people really use Tix
anymore and people in tcl/tk moved onto better toolkits long ago.

My question is if Tix is old hat, what is the GUI toolkit I *should*
be using for quick-n-dirty cross platform GUI development? I guess
this is tangentially related to:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ed0d40ffd0b1c0

I hope this isn't a stupid question. I'm wearing flame retardant
underwear.

Peter

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oct 13 '07 #12
On 2007-10-13, David Tremouilles <da********@gmail.comwrote:
I would recommend pyGTK http://www.pygtk.org/
Native GTK on OSX is still in its infancy. For early adopters only at
this point. See

http://www.oreillynet.com/articles/author/2414

That leaves PyQt and WxPython as the only other realistic choices.
Licensing issues aside, I think Qt has the most polished and well
thought out API. The OSX Tiger dev tools include WxPython, though you
may want to install a newer version. I suggest installing both and
trying some of the included examples.

Another possibility is Jython, if you like the Java way of doing
things.

Dave Cook

Oct 13 '07 #13
No issue with pygtk on mac!
Actually I develop on this platform everyday. Macport take care of the
installation for me http://www.macports.org/ (Fink should do the work
too).
Of course native GTK on OSX could be nice but definitely not needed at
this point in time.

David

2007/10/13, Dave Cook <da******@nowhere.net>:
On 2007-10-13, David Tremouilles <da********@gmail.comwrote:
I would recommend pyGTK http://www.pygtk.org/

Native GTK on OSX is still in its infancy. For early adopters only at
this point. See

http://www.oreillynet.com/articles/author/2414

That leaves PyQt and WxPython as the only other realistic choices.
Licensing issues aside, I think Qt has the most polished and well
thought out API. The OSX Tiger dev tools include WxPython, though you
may want to install a newer version. I suggest installing both and
trying some of the included examples.

Another possibility is Jython, if you like the Java way of doing
things.

Dave Cook

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oct 13 '07 #14
On 2007-10-13, David Tremouilles <da********@gmail.comwrote:
No issue with pygtk on mac!
If running on top of X11 is no problem.
Actually I develop on this platform everyday. Macport take care of the
installation for me http://www.macports.org/ (Fink should do the work
too).
In that case I'd recommend kiwi as well

http://www.async.com.br/projects/kiwi/

Dave Cook
Oct 13 '07 #15
David Tremouilles wrote:
No issue with pygtk on mac!
Actually I develop on this platform everyday. Macport take care of the
installation for me http://www.macports.org/ (Fink should do the work
too).
Of course native GTK on OSX could be nice but definitely not needed at
this point in time.
"Native" Gtk on the Mac still isn't really native. I tried a "native"
build of Wireshark and was very disappointed. Yes, it uses Quartz/Aqua
instead of X to draw Windows, but it completely ignores other Aqua
interface conventions--the menu is still attached to each window instead
of at the top of the screen, buttons aren't Aqua buttons, and so on.
Based on what I've seen, I don't think Gtk is really viable as a native
Mac development environment; it looks as weird as Fltk, which also uses
Aqua windowing but which also draws its own widgets and puts the menubar
on each window.

Tk does much better; while it's not very pretty, menubars are in the
correct place and buttons work correctly.

--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
Oct 13 '07 #16
David Tremouilles wrote:
No issue with pygtk on mac!
Actually I develop on this platform everyday. Macport take care of the
installation for me http://www.macports.org/ (Fink should do the work
too).
Of course native GTK on OSX could be nice but definitely not needed at
this point in time.
"Native" Gtk on the Mac still isn't really native. I tried a "native"
build of Wireshark and was very disappointed. Yes, it uses Quartz/Aqua
instead of X to draw Windows, but it completely ignores other Aqua
interface conventions--the menu is still attached to each window instead
of at the top of the screen, buttons aren't Aqua buttons, and so on.
Based on what I've seen, I don't think Gtk is really viable as a native
Mac development environment; it looks as weird as Fltk, which also uses
Aqua windowing but which also draws its own widgets and puts the menubar
on each window.

Tk does much better; while it's not very pretty, menubars are in the
correct place and buttons work correctly.

--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
Oct 13 '07 #17
David Tremouilles schrieb:
No issue with pygtk on mac!
Actually I develop on this platform everyday. Macport take care of the
installation for me http://www.macports.org/ (Fink should do the work
too).
Of course native GTK on OSX could be nice but definitely not needed at
this point in time.
It sure looks crappy in comparison to the rest of the OSX apps - and
given that with Qt (and of course the brilliant PyObjc-bridge) there
exist options that look & feel waaay better, I wouldn't consider using GTK.
Oct 13 '07 #18
"crappy", "waaay better"
I will not feed the troll...
Pygtk on mac just do the work for me on a more than satisfying way.

David

2007/10/13, Diez B. Roggisch <de***@nospam.web.de>:
David Tremouilles schrieb:
No issue with pygtk on mac!
Actually I develop on this platform everyday. Macport take care of the
installation for me http://www.macports.org/ (Fink should do the work
too).
Of course native GTK on OSX could be nice but definitely not needed at
this point in time.

It sure looks crappy in comparison to the rest of the OSX apps - and
given that with Qt (and of course the brilliant PyObjc-bridge) there
exist options that look & feel waaay better, I wouldn't consider using GTK.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oct 15 '07 #19
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:34:14 +0200, Michael L Torrie
<to*****@chem.byu.eduwrote:
[snip]
You do have
to take pains to make the app "feel" native, though. Like follow the UI
guidelines of the platform, etc.
You're absolutely right; I just wanted to add a precision: it's true for
every toolkit, not only Qt...
--
python -c "print ''.join([chr(154 - ord(c)) for c in
'U(17zX(%,5.zmz5(17l8(%,5.Z*(93-965$l7+-'])"
Oct 15 '07 #20
David Tremouilles wrote:
"crappy", "waaay better"
I will not feed the troll...
Pygtk on mac just do the work for me on a more than satisfying way.

If that's the case, good for you. If your application is open-source,
then perhaps it's not unreasonable to expect your users to adapt to the
way you do things--and there are enough Unix-savvy Mac users who won't
be put off by an X11-based app. (Heck, I use Gimp and Inkscape all the
time!) However, if you want to develop your application commercially,
*very* few Mac end users, even Unix-savvy ones, will pay for an
X11-based tool. I know I've opted not to purchase WingIDE, for instance,
because it's X11-based (PyGtk in fact) and because I can find plenty of
Mac-native programming tools. The interface quirks of the free Gimp are
tolerable because Photoshop is several hundred dollars, but I am not
willing to pay a few hundred dollars for a commercial tool that has the
same interface glitches.
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
Oct 15 '07 #21
David Tremouilles wrote:
"crappy", "waaay better"
I will not feed the troll...
Pygtk on mac just do the work for me on a more than satisfying way.

If that's the case, good for you. If your application is open-source,
then perhaps it's not unreasonable to expect your users to adapt to the
way you do things--and there are enough Unix-savvy Mac users who won't
be put off by an X11-based app. (Heck, I use Gimp and Inkscape all the
time!) However, if you want to develop your application commercially,
*very* few Mac end users, even Unix-savvy ones, will pay for an
X11-based tool. I know I've opted not to purchase WingIDE, for instance,
because it's X11-based (PyGtk in fact) and because I can find plenty of
Mac-native programming tools. The interface quirks of the free Gimp are
tolerable because Photoshop is several hundred dollars, but I am not
willing to pay a few hundred dollars for a commercial tool that has the
same interface glitches.
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
Oct 15 '07 #22
David Tremouilles wrote:
"crappy", "waaay better"
I will not feed the troll...
Pygtk on mac just do the work for me on a more than satisfying way.
I should have worded more carefully, it wasn't intended as trolling. Sorry
for that.

But the point I wanted to make still stands - the native look of OSX is very
distinctive. So if it's anyhow possible, I'd recommend using PyObjc +
native Cocoa.

Yet as the OP asked for Cross-platform, the Qt-gui is pretty close,
especially with Qt4.

And I'm sorry to say so, but GTK within X11 looks very alien to the regular
OSX user.

I personally don't mind that (using inkscape & gimp) - but I wouldn't impose
that on my users. And not only for the looks, but also for the lack of
integration with the OSX windowmanager.

Diez
Oct 15 '07 #23
On Oct 13, 12:34 am, Michael L Torrie <torr...@chem.byu.eduwrote:
Alexandre Badez wrote:
Personnaly, I use PyQt simply because I prefere Qt to Gtk, witch is
much more integrated with all desktop than Gtk.
In fact, your application in Qt on Mac, Win or Linux look like a
native app.

Qt doesn't look very native on my desktop. In fact, Qt apps have always
looked out of place on a Gnome desktop.

On Windows and Mac, no question, they look pretty native. You do have
to take pains to make the app "feel" native, though. Like follow the UI
guidelines of the platform, etc.
Just a question of "feeling" I think; because most of those GUI
framework, offer quiet the same functionality.
GTK (like Pidgin or the GIMP) looks pretty native on Windows to me.
Years of using Windows is probably why I think GTK/GNOME looks better
than Qt/KDE.

Oct 23 '07 #24
On 10/23/07, maco <ma*****@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 13, 12:34 am, Michael L Torrie <torr...@chem.byu.eduwrote:
Alexandre Badez wrote:
Personnaly, I use PyQt simply because I prefere Qt to Gtk, witch is
much more integrated with all desktop than Gtk.
In fact, your application in Qt on Mac, Win or Linux look like a
native app.
Qt doesn't look very native on my desktop. In fact, Qt apps have always
looked out of place on a Gnome desktop.

On Windows and Mac, no question, they look pretty native. You do have
to take pains to make the app "feel" native, though. Like follow the UI
guidelines of the platform, etc.
Just a question of "feeling" I think; because most of those GUI
framework, offer quiet the same functionality.

GTK (like Pidgin or the GIMP) looks pretty native on Windows to me.
This can only be because you don't use these programs often, or you've
never actually looked at them. The GIMP in particular has almost
nothing in common with the native controls - it's got a different
background color, a different drawing model (note nasty delayed
repaints when resizing), clearly non-native dialogs like file pickers,
non-standard menu icons, just a huge list.

Pidgin has a fairly minimal interface so it's flaws are less obvious,
but they're still there.

If this doesn't bother you, more power to you, but don't make the
mistake of thinking that GIMP is any way "native" on windows.
Years of using Windows is probably why I think GTK/GNOME looks better
than Qt/KDE.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oct 23 '07 #25
On Oct 23, 2:59 pm, "Chris Mellon" <arka...@gmail.comwrote:
On 10/23/07, maco <maco...@gmail.comwrote:

On Oct 13, 12:34 am, Michael L Torrie <torr...@chem.byu.eduwrote:
Qt doesn't look very native on my desktop. In fact, Qt apps have always
looked out of place on a Gnome desktop.
On Windows and Mac, no question, they look pretty native. You do have
to take pains to make the app "feel" native, though. Like follow the UI
guidelines of the platform, etc.
Just a question of "feeling" I think; because most of those GUI
framework, offer quiet the same functionality.
GTK (like Pidgin or the GIMP) looks pretty native on Windows to me.

This can only be because you don't use these programs often, or you've
never actually looked at them. The GIMP in particular has almost
nothing in common with the native controls - it's got a different
background color, a different drawing model (note nasty delayed
repaints when resizing), clearly non-native dialogs like file pickers,
non-standard menu icons, just a huge list.

Pidgin has a fairly minimal interface so it's flaws are less obvious,
but they're still there.

If this doesn't bother you, more power to you, but don't make the
mistake of thinking that GIMP is any way "native" on windows.
In the end, GTK+ is themable, and it's a free software project, so if
the MS Windows port has warts, anyone can come along and polish it up
for that platform.

Oct 25 '07 #26
On Oct 12, 6:30 am, Nick Craig-Wood <n...@craig-wood.comwrote:
>
I'd recommend wxPython over those becase

1) native look and feel on all platforms
2) doesn't require expensive licensing for non-commercial apps (QT)
3) Isn't a pain to install on windows (GTK)

That said, times change and 1-3 may have changed since I last looked
at it!
My impression has always been that a number of people use wx because
of its API similarities to some MS Windows GUI toolkit or other.

Oct 25 '07 #27
On 10/24/07, bramble <ca***********@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 23, 2:59 pm, "Chris Mellon" <arka...@gmail.comwrote:
On 10/23/07, maco <maco...@gmail.comwrote:

On Oct 13, 12:34 am, Michael L Torrie <torr...@chem.byu.eduwrote:
Qt doesn't look very native on my desktop. In fact, Qt apps have always
looked out of place on a Gnome desktop.
On Windows and Mac, no question, they look pretty native. You do have
to take pains to make the app "feel" native, though. Like follow the UI
guidelines of the platform, etc.
Just a question of "feeling" I think; because most of those GUI
framework, offer quiet the same functionality.
GTK (like Pidgin or the GIMP) looks pretty native on Windows to me.
This can only be because you don't use these programs often, or you've
never actually looked at them. The GIMP in particular has almost
nothing in common with the native controls - it's got a different
background color, a different drawing model (note nasty delayed
repaints when resizing), clearly non-native dialogs like file pickers,
non-standard menu icons, just a huge list.

Pidgin has a fairly minimal interface so it's flaws are less obvious,
but they're still there.

If this doesn't bother you, more power to you, but don't make the
mistake of thinking that GIMP is any way "native" on windows.

In the end, GTK+ is themable, and it's a free software project, so if
the MS Windows port has warts, anyone can come along and polish it up
for that platform.
There's been plenty to say about this in the past, so I will be brief:
Being able to use the native theme API is necessary but not sufficient
for native look and feel. Gtk doesn't even try for anything other than
a cursory attempt at "look", and as far as I know doesn't have any
real interest in doing so.

I don't have any problem than that, but I don't like people
misrepresenting what you get from using Gtk.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oct 25 '07 #28
On Oct 25, 6:32 am, "Chris Mellon" <arka...@gmail.comwrote:
On 10/24/07, bramble <cadet.bram...@gmail.comwrote:
In the end, GTK+ is themable, and it's a free software project, so if
the MS Windows port has warts, anyone can come along and polish it up
for that platform.

There's been plenty to say about this in the past, so I will be brief:
Being able to use the native theme API is necessary but not sufficient
for native look and feel. Gtk doesn't even try for anything other than
a cursory attempt at "look", and as far as I know doesn't have any
real interest in doing so.

I don't have any problem than that, but I don't like people
misrepresenting what you get from using Gtk.
Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent GTK+. I clumsily jammed 2 ideas
into one sentence: one, that theming can mitigate some issues with
differences in L&F ("look and feel"), and two, that it's free
software, so contributors can try and make the L&F more native if it's
really that big a deal.

One reason I'm not crazy about wx because I don't like the idea of
adding yet another API layer into the mix. Wx seems quite large, and
if issues arise, debugging a GUI that calls another GUI does not seem
like a fun way to spend your time. Anyhow, my opinion is, pick one
good enough native GNU/Linux GUI toolkit that the community can
somewhat standardize on (and GTK+/PyGTK seems to fit that bill pretty
well), write your apps in that so they run really well on GNU/Linux
distros, and *then* get your apps running on secondary OS's as-needed.

Oct 25 '07 #29
bramble <ca***********@gmail.comwrote:
[ GTK is ] free
software, so contributors can try and make the L&F more native if it's
really that big a deal.
But the people who care about Windows native L&F are not the people
with the resources (time, money, probably experience) to address
this issue. And the people who do probably don't care. If you're
developing an app where it matters, it's much easier to just go with
the option that gives the right L&F out of the box.
>One reason I'm not crazy about wx because I don't like the idea of
adding yet another API layer into the mix. Wx seems quite large, and
if issues arise, debugging a GUI that calls another GUI does not seem
like a fun way to spend your time.
I used to maintain a couple of commercial wxPython apps which were
only ever meant to run on Windows, and the native L&F was the
primary driver behind the choice of wx. Because Linux is my
development platform of choice, I wound up trying to run them there
as well. For a supposedly cross-platform library, it required a lot
of porting effort. And, as you say, when things go wrong it's
difficult to know whether to lay it at the feet of wxPython, wx or
GTK. (And then bear in mind that GTK is layered on top of X....)

--
\S -- si***@chiark.greenend.org.uk -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
"Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other"
-- Arthur C. Clarke
her nu becomež se bera eadward ofdun hlęddre heafdes bęce bump bump bump
Oct 26 '07 #30

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by rollasoc | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Rob Woodworth | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by Bart Van der Donck | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by ampo | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by Marin | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.