How is GUI programming in Python?

[Chris Stewart]

I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.

Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

Chris Stewart
cs*********@gmail.com

[Paul Rubin]

Chris Stewart <cs*********@gmail.comwrites:

I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.
...
Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?

If by "best" you mean "easiest", that is probably tkinter, which
comes with python. It is somewhat rudimentary and the widgets that
come with it don't look so great. But if you just want to put up
GUI's with basic functionality and not much glitz, it is ok for most
such purposes.
out how to use

[Benjamin]

On Apr 9, 8:54 pm, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:

I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.

Since it's Python, it will be a lot less painless than anything
else. :)

>
Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

Tkinter is the easiest for little apps, but when I'm doing anything
for real, I use PyQt.

>
Chris Stewart
[e-mail]

[Kam-Hung Soh]

On Apr 10, 12:35 pm, Benjamin <[e-mail]:

On Apr 9, 8:54 pm, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it

further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.

Since it's Python, it will be a lot less painless than anything
else. :)

Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

Tkinter is the easiest for little apps, but when I'm doing anything
for real, I use PyQt.

Chris Stewart
[e-mail]

Since the OP has Swing programming experience, what about Jython
(http://www.jython.org/Project/index.html)?

"Jython is an implementation of the high-level, dynamic, object-
oriented language Python written in 100% Pure Java, and seamlessly
integrated with the Java platform. It thus allows you to run Python on
any Java platform."

--
Kam-Hung Soh <a href="http://kamhungsoh.com/blog">Software Salariman</
a>

[CM]

On Apr 9, 9:54 pm, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:

I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.

Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

Chris Stewart
[e-mail]

I've enjoyed using wxPython. Mature, active, native controls, lots o'
widgets, killer demo, great community, cross platform (with some
tweaking sometimes).

[David Cook]

On 2008-04-10, Chris Stewart <cs*********@gmail.comwrote:

I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be?

With wxpython and pyqt, it can be relatively painless. You can often just
copy your code directly from one OS to the other and run it, and py2exe
makes it easy to distribute python apps to windows users. I haven't tried
packaging on OS X (with py2app?).

I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.

Yes, the broad principles (event driven, single-threaded event loop) are
pretty much the same.

Note, if you really like Swing, you can use it from Jython. Your app would
install and look like any other Java app to users (Jython is just another
jar in your distribution), for good or ill.

Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

We use wxPython at work because of the more liberal license. It's very
capable and works well for us.

However, for my own projects, I've switched to pyqt, which offers more
complete application help (e.g. things like Actions) and uses MVC from the
ground up rather than as an afterthought. I also find the pyqt API cleaner
and more consistent; some aspects of wxpython still seem clunky to me. And
the auto-completion solution offered on the wxPython wiki doesn't work on
Mac, which pretty much killed it for my project.

Dave Cook

[Michel Bouwmans]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Rubin wrote:

Chris Stewart <cs*********@gmail.comwrites:

>I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.
...
Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?

If by "best" you mean "easiest", that is probably tkinter, which
comes with python. It is somewhat rudimentary and the widgets that
come with it don't look so great. But if you just want to put up
GUI's with basic functionality and not much glitz, it is ok for most
such purposes.
out how to use

I don't quite agree with you on this. Tkinter may be easy because it is
available by standard in Python, but that's about it in my opinion. The
API, look and performance hit is horrible. You're much better of with PyQt4
which makes the job really simple.

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/kjhDpaqHmOKFdQRAj+kAJ0d3aHqpv/mh7kSqtDqUFXtJsxi1gCfU5UP
2Ygw9ttRIYX+ioMyBVUNsVo=
=stR5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mike Driscoll]

On Apr 10, 12:05 pm, Michel Bouwmans <[e-mail]:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Rubin wrote:

Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:

I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.
...
Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?

If by "best" you mean "easiest", that is probably tkinter, which
comes with python. It is somewhat rudimentary and the widgets that
come with it don't look so great. But if you just want to put up
GUI's with basic functionality and not much glitz, it is ok for most
such purposes.
out how to use

I don't quite agree with you on this. Tkinter may be easy because it is
available by standard in Python, but that's about it in my opinion. The
API, look and performance hit is horrible. You're much better of with PyQt4
which makes the job really simple.

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/kjhDpaqHmOKFdQRAj+kAJ0d3aHqpv/mh7kSqtDqUFXtJsxi1gCfU5UP
2Ygw9ttRIYX+ioMyBVUNsVo=
=stR5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I see a lot of people recommend using pyQt, but they never mention the
controversy that surrounds its licensing. There have been many posts
on the subject already, but if the OP ever decides to sell anything
they create, I've heard that QT's licensing is kind of squirrelly.
Maybe this has been straightened out?

I looked at the website and found it fairly confusing. And don't you
need to download QT itself?

Mike

[Bjoern Schliessmann]

Chris Stewart wrote:

I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in
it further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs
but nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple
GUI app that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How
painful is that going to be?

I've built and am maintaining a not-so-simple-anymore cross platform
GUI application using wxPython (running in GNU/Linux (GTK+) and
Windows (XP/Vista)). It integrates well since wxPython uses native
widgets. The only problems I face are minor looks problems with
some widgets, e. g. tooltips with line breaks or list controls with
custom font. Custom widgets work very well.

Windows fonts BTW are a real pain since they have almost no unicode
characters, compared to today's GNU/Linux distributions.

Regards,
Björn

--
BOFH excuse #383:

Your processor has taken a ride to Heaven's Gate on the UFO behind
Hale-Bopp's comet.

[Michel Bouwmans]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Driscoll wrote:

On Apr 10, 12:05 pm, Michel Bouwmans <[e-mail]:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Rubin wrote:

Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.
...
Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?

If by "best" you mean "easiest", that is probably tkinter, which
comes with python. It is somewhat rudimentary and the widgets that
come with it don't look so great. But if you just want to put up
GUI's with basic functionality and not much glitz, it is ok for most
such purposes.
out how to use

I don't quite agree with you on this. Tkinter may be easy because it is
available by standard in Python, but that's about it in my opinion. The
API, look and performance hit is horrible. You're much better of with
PyQt4 which makes the job really simple.

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/kjhDpaqHmOKFdQRAj+kAJ0d3aHqpv/mh7kSqtDqUFXtJsxi1gCfU5UP
2Ygw9ttRIYX+ioMyBVUNsVo=
=stR5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I see a lot of people recommend using pyQt, but they never mention the
controversy that surrounds its licensing. There have been many posts
on the subject already, but if the OP ever decides to sell anything
they create, I've heard that QT's licensing is kind of squirrelly.
Maybe this has been straightened out?

I looked at the website and found it fairly confusing. And don't you
need to download QT itself?

Mike

Yeah, the licensing of Qt is either be open-source (under one of the
Qt-exception licenses licenses so no exclusivity for the GPL anymore) or
pay for the commercial version. So yes, if you would like to sell it as
closed-source software you will need to buy the commercial version of Qt
and PyQt. In other words: you will have to pay twice. Don't forget that you
can also sell open-source software, so you don't have to pay. ;)

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/mMBDpaqHmOKFdQRAiAkAJ0XoysACvcaxLWwvYauFlgEEaGLVwC fdz7g
XMUDfEPLX6RfLV25viLB9aA=
=d2ms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[John Henry]

On Apr 9, 6:54 pm, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:

I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.

Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

Chris Stewart
[e-mail]

If you are looking for something "really simple", my vote still goes
to PythonCard. It has been around a looooooooooong time, very mature,
stable, and comes with sufficient widgets to get most daily job done.
True, it hasn't been updated to include some of the newer widgets but
there are plenty in the package already.

The danger is that once you get hooked in using Pythoncard, it's hard
to leave because everything else looks soooooooo "non really simple".

I've looked at every other Python GUI package. In my humble opinion,
none came close to being "really simple" than Pythoncard. It's too
bad the more capable people in the Python community doesn't pick up
the ball and continue to run with it.

For me, I am now migrating away from doing desktop GUI apps into
browse based applications with a Python backend, and qooxdoo
frontend. So, for me, Pythoncard will be my last desktop GUI tool
package.

[Steve Holden]

Michel Bouwmans wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Driscoll wrote:

>On Apr 10, 12:05 pm, Michel Bouwmans <[e-mail]:

>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Rubin wrote:
Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few years
ago. I imagine it will be similar.
...
Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
If by "best" you mean "easiest", that is probably tkinter, which
comes with python. It is somewhat rudimentary and the widgets that
come with it don't look so great. But if you just want to put up
GUI's with basic functionality and not much glitz, it is ok for most
such purposes.
out how to use
I don't quite agree with you on this. Tkinter may be easy because it is
available by standard in Python, but that's about it in my opinion. The
API, look and performance hit is horrible. You're much better of with
PyQt4 which makes the job really simple.

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/kjhDpaqHmOKFdQRAj+kAJ0d3aHqpv/mh7kSqtDqUFXtJsxi1gCfU5UP
2Ygw9ttRIYX+ioMyBVUNsVo=
=stR5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I see a lot of people recommend using pyQt, but they never mention the
controversy that surrounds its licensing. There have been many posts
on the subject already, but if the OP ever decides to sell anything
they create, I've heard that QT's licensing is kind of squirrelly.
Maybe this has been straightened out?

I looked at the website and found it fairly confusing. And don't you
need to download QT itself?

Mike

Yeah, the licensing of Qt is either be open-source (under one of the
Qt-exception licenses licenses so no exclusivity for the GPL anymore) or
pay for the commercial version. So yes, if you would like to sell it as
closed-source software you will need to buy the commercial version of Qt
and PyQt. In other words: you will have to pay twice. Don't forget that you
can also sell open-source software, so you don't have to pay. ;)

I don't think PyQt has any licensing restrictions to speak of, only the
underlying Qt platform (though it's a while since I looked).

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[Gabriel Genellina]

En Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:01:43 -0300, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.com>
escribió:

Michel Bouwmans wrote:

>>
Mike Driscoll wrote:

>>I see a lot of people recommend using pyQt, but they never mention the
controversy that surrounds its licensing. There have been many posts
on the subject already, but if the OP ever decides to sell anything
they create, I've heard that QT's licensing is kind of squirrelly.
Maybe this has been straightened out?

I looked at the website and found it fairly confusing. And don't you
need to download QT itself?

Mike

Yeah, the licensing of Qt is either be open-source (under one of the
Qt-exception licenses licenses so no exclusivity for the GPL anymore) or
pay for the commercial version. So yes, if you would like to sell it as
closed-source software you will need to buy the commercial version of Qt
and PyQt. In other words: you will have to pay twice. Don't forget that
you
can also sell open-source software, so you don't have to pay. ;)

I don't think PyQt has any licensing restrictions to speak of, only the
underlying Qt platform (though it's a while since I looked).

Yes, you have to buy separate licenses for both PyQt and Qt. From the PyQt
home page: """PyQt v4 is licensed under the GNU GPL and under a commercial
license on all platforms. [...] You can purchase the commercial version of
PyQt here. PyQt does not include a copy of Qt. You must obtain a correctly
licensed copy of Qt yourself."""

Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot develop something using the
open source license and later decide to switch to the commercial licence
and buy it.

--
Gabriel Genellina

[Paul Rubin]

Phil Thompson <ph**@riverbankcomputing.comwrites:

Installing Pyqt on windows involves a couple "click to install" EXEs. On
Linux, one uses yum or apt. Only on Mac is it marginally a bit harder.

Actually, on Windows it's only one .exe as the PyQt GPL binary installer
includes Qt and all it's tools (and the eric IDE, and PyQwt).

Generally I prefer to minimize the number of installs, and especially
minimize the number of binary installs. And my experience with yum
and apt has generally been dependency hell, especially when installing
from sources. But anyway, I consider zero installs to be far superior
to any number greater than zero.

[Michel Bouwmans]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gabriel Genellina wrote:

Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot develop something using the
open source license and later decide to switch to the commercial licence
and buy it.

Unless you're a company with a risk of being checked for legal software
etc., you can always ignore that allthough not very legal.

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/3ZSDpaqHmOKFdQRAsupAKCN292aFK7V+AHXeQu/rzac7WAnnACgq+Al
2LzsfA5No1PTOgIc2wdYjf0=
=7JyM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michel Bouwmans]

Steve Holden wrote:

Michel Bouwmans wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Driscoll wrote:

>>On Apr 10, 12:05 pm, Michel Bouwmans <[e-mail]:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Rubin wrote:
Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
>I've always had an interest in Python and would like to dabble in it
>further. I've worked on a few very small command line programs but
>nothing of any complexity. I'd like to build a really simple GUI app
>that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux. How painful is that
>going to be? I used to be really familiar with Java Swing a few
>years
>ago. I imagine it will be similar.
>...
>Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
If by "best" you mean "easiest", that is probably tkinter, which
comes with python. It is somewhat rudimentary and the widgets that
come with it don't look so great. But if you just want to put up
GUI's with basic functionality and not much glitz, it is ok for most
such purposes.
out how to use
I don't quite agree with you on this. Tkinter may be easy because it is
available by standard in Python, but that's about it in my opinion. The
API, look and performance hit is horrible. You're much better of with
PyQt4 which makes the job really simple.

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/kjhDpaqHmOKFdQRAj+kAJ0d3aHqpv/mh7kSqtDqUFXtJsxi1gCfU5UP
2Ygw9ttRIYX+ioMyBVUNsVo=
=stR5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I see a lot of people recommend using pyQt, but they never mention the
controversy that surrounds its licensing. There have been many posts
on the subject already, but if the OP ever decides to sell anything
they create, I've heard that QT's licensing is kind of squirrelly.
Maybe this has been straightened out?

I looked at the website and found it fairly confusing. And don't you
need to download QT itself?

Mike

Yeah, the licensing of Qt is either be open-source (under one of the
Qt-exception licenses licenses so no exclusivity for the GPL anymore) or
pay for the commercial version. So yes, if you would like to sell it as
closed-source software you will need to buy the commercial version of Qt
and PyQt. In other words: you will have to pay twice. Don't forget that
you can also sell open-source software, so you don't have to pay. ;)

I don't think PyQt has any licensing restrictions to speak of, only the
underlying Qt platform (though it's a while since I looked).

regards
Steve

Unfortunately, from the PyQt website's FAQ:

Do I need the commercial version of PyQt?
The easiest way to answer this is to ask "Am I using the commercial edition
of Qt?". If so then you also need the commercial version of PyQt. If you
are using the GPL version of Qt, then you only need the GPL version of
PyQt.

MFB

[Rune Strand]

On Apr 10, 3:54 am, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
....

>
Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

GUI-programming in Python is a neanderthal experience. What one may
love with console scripts is turned upside-down. Projects like Boa
Constructor seemed to be a remedy, but is not developed. The Iron-
Pythonistas has a very promising RAD GUI-tool in the IronPython -
Studio, http://www.codeplex.com/IronPythonStudio - but if you're non-
Iron, only sorrow is left - unless you fancy creating GUI in a text-
editor. Something I consider waste of life.

[Stef Mientki]

Rune Strand wrote:

On Apr 10, 3:54 am, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
...

>Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

GUI-programming in Python is a neanderthal experience. What one may
love with console scripts is turned upside-down. Projects like Boa
Constructor seemed to be a remedy, but is not developed. The Iron-
Pythonistas has a very promising RAD GUI-tool in the IronPython -
Studio, http://www.codeplex.com/IronPythonStudio - but if you're non-
Iron, only sorrow is left - unless you fancy creating GUI in a text-
editor. Something I consider waste of life.

Although not as simple as Delphi,
wxPython is still quit simple:

GUI = """
self.Splitter_Plots ,SplitterVer
self.Panel ,PanelVer, 010
self.Panel_Top ,PanelHor, 11
label1 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal1"
label2 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal2"
self.Panel_X ,wx.Panel, 11
self.Panel_Bottom ,PanelHor
label11 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal1b"
label12 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal2b"
Panel_B ,wx.Panel
Button_1 ,wx.Button ,label = "Test"
Button_2 ,wx.Button ,label = "Test2", pos = (100,0)
"""
exec ( Create_wxGUI ( GUI ) )

cheers,
Stef

[Gabriel Ibanez]

Hello all !

More fire ..
Why is nobody talking about pyGTK ? There are no limits with licenses (I
think)

If we work on Ubuntu or Fedora, is there any reason to give GTK away and
develop on Qt ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stef Mientki" <st**********@gmail.com>
Cc: <py*********@python.org>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: How is GUI programming in Python?

Rune Strand wrote:

>On Apr 10, 3:54 am, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
...

>>Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

GUI-programming in Python is a neanderthal experience. What one may
love with console scripts is turned upside-down. Projects like Boa
Constructor seemed to be a remedy, but is not developed. The Iron-
Pythonistas has a very promising RAD GUI-tool in the IronPython -
Studio, http://www.codeplex.com/IronPythonStudio - but if you're non-
Iron, only sorrow is left - unless you fancy creating GUI in a text-
editor. Something I consider waste of life.

Although not as simple as Delphi,
wxPython is still quit simple:

GUI = """
self.Splitter_Plots ,SplitterVer
self.Panel ,PanelVer, 010
self.Panel_Top ,PanelHor, 11
label1 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal1"
label2 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal2"
self.Panel_X ,wx.Panel, 11
self.Panel_Bottom ,PanelHor
label11 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal1b"
label12 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal2b"
Panel_B ,wx.Panel
Button_1 ,wx.Button ,label = "Test"
Button_2 ,wx.Button ,label = "Test2", pos = (100,0)
"""
exec ( Create_wxGUI ( GUI ) )

cheers,
Stef
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[sturlamolden]

On Apr 11, 5:01 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot develop something using the
open source license and later decide to switch to the commercial licence
and buy it.

Trolltech is afraid companies will buy one licence when the task is
done, as oppsed to one license per developer. In a commercial setting,
the Qt license is not expensive. It is painful for hobbyists wanting
to commercialize their products.

[Rune Strand]

On Apr 11, 8:35 pm, Steve Holden <[e-mail]:

wxDesigner.

Yeah, but it's like Heron of Alexandria's Aeolipile compared to the
steam engine of James Watt.

IMHO, GUI with Python is pain, pain and utter pain. Even boring and
meaningless pain.

[sturlamolden]

On Apr 11, 8:35 pm, Steve Holden <[e-mail]:

wxDesigner.

IMHO, wxFormBuilder is better.
http://wxformbuilder.org/
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6l8wp4

[Stef Mientki]

Rune Strand wrote:

On Apr 10, 3:54 am, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
...

>Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

GUI-programming in Python is a neanderthal experience. What one may
love with console scripts is turned upside-down. Projects like Boa
Constructor seemed to be a remedy, but is not developed. The Iron-
Pythonistas has a very promising RAD GUI-tool in the IronPython -
Studio, http://www.codeplex.com/IronPythonStudio - but if you're non-
Iron, only sorrow is left - unless you fancy creating GUI in a text-
editor. Something I consider waste of life.

Although not as simple as Delphi,
wxPython is still quit simple:

GUI = """
self.Splitter_Plots ,SplitterVer
self.Panel ,PanelVer, 010
self.Panel_Top ,PanelHor, 11
label1 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal1"
label2 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal2"
self.Panel_X ,wx.Panel, 11
self.Panel_Bottom ,PanelHor
label11 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal1b"
label12 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal2b"
Panel_B ,wx.Panel
Button_1 ,wx.Button ,label = "Test"
Button_2 ,wx.Button ,label = "Test2", pos = (100,0)
"""
exec ( Create_wxGUI ( GUI ) )

cheers,
Stef

[Michel Bouwmans]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rune Strand wrote:

On Apr 10, 3:54 am, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
...

>>
Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

GUI-programming in Python is a neanderthal experience. What one may
love with console scripts is turned upside-down. Projects like Boa
Constructor seemed to be a remedy, but is not developed. The Iron-
Pythonistas has a very promising RAD GUI-tool in the IronPython -
Studio, http://www.codeplex.com/IronPythonStudio - but if you're non-
Iron, only sorrow is left - unless you fancy creating GUI in a text-
editor. Something I consider waste of life.

Qt Designer. And creating the GUI yourself in the text editor isn't that
bad, plus you have much better control over it.

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/+BIDpaqHmOKFdQRAskNAKCDvMAK2MQCurxJ1zopibYOzhUpNgC gq7sn
NxW9nWKU9nDrybd2EoxX51w=
=okW6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Gabriel Ibanez]

Hello all !

More fire ..
Why is nobody talking about pyGTK ? There are no limits with licenses (I
think)

If we work on Ubuntu or Fedora, is there any reason to give GTK away and
develop on Qt ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stef Mientki" <st**********@gmail.com>
Cc: <py*********@python.org>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: How is GUI programming in Python?

Rune Strand wrote:

>On Apr 10, 3:54 am, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
...

>>Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

GUI-programming in Python is a neanderthal experience. What one may
love with console scripts is turned upside-down. Projects like Boa
Constructor seemed to be a remedy, but is not developed. The Iron-
Pythonistas has a very promising RAD GUI-tool in the IronPython -
Studio, http://www.codeplex.com/IronPythonStudio - but if you're non-
Iron, only sorrow is left - unless you fancy creating GUI in a text-
editor. Something I consider waste of life.

Although not as simple as Delphi,
wxPython is still quit simple:

GUI = """
self.Splitter_Plots ,SplitterVer
self.Panel ,PanelVer, 010
self.Panel_Top ,PanelHor, 11
label1 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal1"
label2 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal2"
self.Panel_X ,wx.Panel, 11
self.Panel_Bottom ,PanelHor
label11 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal1b"
label12 ,wx.StaticText ,label = "Signal2b"
Panel_B ,wx.Panel
Button_1 ,wx.Button ,label = "Test"
Button_2 ,wx.Button ,label = "Test2", pos = (100,0)
"""
exec ( Create_wxGUI ( GUI ) )

cheers,
Stef
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[Rune Strand]

On Apr 12, 12:03 am, Michel Bouwmans <[e-mail]:

>
Qt Designer. And creating the GUI yourself in the text editor isn't that
bad, plus you have much better control over it.

If you like designing isual elements in an editor, that's fine for
me!
I don't,
And as I don't do it all the time, I tend to forget constructional
details and waste life googling. So for me it's pain without
cognition. AKA waste of life.

Numerous RAD' env's, fx Delphi, suggests this kind of incredibly
boring almost pre-historic, self-pestering non-sense pain is ancient,
and I happen to agree. It's an orthodox and monkish way of
programming. Some like it that way and that's none of my business. I
don't like it that way.

Designing GUI in a text-editor (for me) always produce a : "good
enough" and consumes a lot of life. The Boa constructor / Delphi way
produce "what I want" without _wasting life_. But Boa is too unstable,
and does not claim otherwise, and there's no descent alternative I'm
aware of.

So, GUI Python still sucks far too much. Console and web Python indeed
does not.

So if the Python Foundation arrange a "Descent RAD" effort, I'll
happily donate $100 for starters. I think Python should be just as
easily GUI'able as it is Console'able. Python is soon 20 years old!

[sturlamolden]

On Apr 12, 12:32 am, Rune Strand <[e-mail]:

produce "what I want" without _wasting life_. But Boa is too unstable,
and does not claim otherwise, and there's no descent alternative I'm
aware of.

wxFormDesigner is the best there is for wx. QtDesigner ditto for Qt.
Glade ditto for GTK. To use them with Python, you should have the GUI
saved in an xml resource (.xrc, .ui, or .glade respectively).

[sturlamolden]

On Apr 11, 5:01 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot develop something using the
open source license and later decide to switch to the commercial licence
and buy it.

Trolltech is afraid companies will buy one licence when the task is
done, as oppsed to one license per developer. In a commercial setting,
the Qt license is not expensive. It is painful for hobbyists wanting
to commercialize their products.

[baalbek]

Rune Strand wrote:

Numerous RAD' env's, fx Delphi, suggests this kind of incredibly
boring almost pre-historic, self-pestering non-sense pain is ancient,

I have used Delphi for a lot of projects, as well as wxPython with the
Glade Gui designer (and wxDesigner with C++ projects).

Delphi/Object Pascal simply sucks big time!

No real control of your GUI design with Delphi, just a lot of point and
click (did anyone mention waste of one's life?), and don't get me
started on that primitive, complete utter waste of language called
Object Pascal!

I code a lot in wxPython whenever I can (read whenever the performance
is ok for the task at hand; 90% of the cases it is).

Python/wxPython/Glade == real programmer's toolkit

Object Pascal/Delphi == the hobbyist/beginner's toolkit

Baalbek

[David Cook]

On 2008-04-11, Gabriel Ibanez <mo****@ibinsa.comwrote:

Why is nobody talking about pyGTK ? There are no limits with licenses (I
think)

The OS X port is still pretty preliminary.

Dave Cook

[CM]

On Apr 11, 3:29 pm, Rune Strand <[e-mail]:

On Apr 11, 8:35 pm, Steve Holden <[e-mail]:

wxDesigner.

Yeah, but it's like Heron of Alexandria's Aeolipile compared to the
steam engine of James Watt.

IMHO, GUI with Python is pain, pain and utter pain. Even boring and
meaningless pain.

What do you prefer, then, to do GUI with? And why?

[Steve Holden]

Rune Strand wrote:

On Apr 11, 8:35 pm, Steve Holden <[e-mail]:

>wxDesigner.

Yeah, but it's like Heron of Alexandria's Aeolipile compared to the
steam engine of James Watt.

IMHO, GUI with Python is pain, pain and utter pain. Even boring and
meaningless pain.

IMHO you are a troll, troll, and utter troll. Even boring and
meaningless troll.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[Gabriel Genellina]

En Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:31:42 -0300, Michel Bouwmans
<mf***********@gmail.comescribió:

Gabriel Genellina wrote:

>Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot develop something using the
open source license and later decide to switch to the commercial licence
and buy it.

Unless you're a company with a risk of being checked for legal software
etc., you can always ignore that allthough not very legal.

I just ignore Qt itself.

--
Gabriel Genellina

[Michel Bouwmans]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gabriel Genellina wrote:

En Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:31:42 -0300, Michel Bouwmans
<mf***********@gmail.comescribió:

>Gabriel Genellina wrote:

>>Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot develop something using the
open source license and later decide to switch to the commercial licence
and buy it.

Unless you're a company with a risk of being checked for legal software
etc., you can always ignore that allthough not very legal.

I just ignore Qt itself.

Then you're ignorant. What do you prefer than?

- - GTK is utter bullshit, creating GUI's functional wise. :r
- - WxPython is terribly unstable. (Next to that I dislike it using GTK on
*NIX, but that's personal :P)
- - Tkinter is ugly and is a memory hog.

MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIAQGjDpaqHmOKFdQRAvbQAKCFwfw2qfMPKzwLny1yaL KBb2xMFACfb/2Z
44qenzoZGgNoP1hd76Rrk6k=
=eKjK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

Michel Bouwmans writes:

Gabriel Genellina wrote:

>Michel Bouwmans <mf***********@gmail.comescribió:

>>Gabriel Genellina wrote:

Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to
choose it at the very start of the project. You cannot develop
something using the open source license and later decide to
switch to the commercial licence and buy it.

Unless you're a company with a risk of being checked for legal
software etc., you can always ignore that allthough not very
legal.

I just ignore Qt itself.

Then you're ignorant. What do you prefer than?

Well ... don't expect answers that you like when you suggest doing
something which is not allowed.

[...]
- WxPython is terribly unstable.

I can't confirm that. When I chose wxPython after thorough
consideration one year ago, my impression was that reports of
instability were indeed frequent but rather old. Apparently, the
situation had improved. Does your experience rely on recent use?

Tschö,
Torsten.

--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
Jabber ID: br*****@jabber.org
(See http://ime.webhop.org for further contact info.)

[Michel Bouwmans]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Torsten Bronger wrote:

Hallöchen!

Und auch ein hallo, aus den Niederlanden! :P

Michel Bouwmans writes:

>Gabriel Genellina wrote:

>>Michel Bouwmans <mf***********@gmail.comescribió:

Gabriel Genellina wrote:

Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to
choose it at the very start of the project. You cannot develop
something using the open source license and later decide to
switch to the commercial licence and buy it.

Unless you're a company with a risk of being checked for legal
software etc., you can always ignore that allthough not very
legal.

I just ignore Qt itself.

Then you're ignorant. What do you prefer than?

Well ... don't expect answers that you like when you suggest doing
something which is not allowed.

>[...]
- WxPython is terribly unstable.

I can't confirm that. When I chose wxPython after thorough
consideration one year ago, my impression was that reports of
instability were indeed frequent but rather old. Apparently, the
situation had improved. Does your experience rely on recent use?

Tschö,
Torsten.

About half a year/a year ago. Segfaults is simply not something I like to
see when I use an API binding. For me it didn't feel that right when using
it so I made the temporary switch to Tkinter.

greetz
MFB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIAc3PDpaqHmOKFdQRAi3PAJ4idF7KLdOQfpfARBjA83 9wyKBQAQCcDIMA
GX41PYj5t+ap8nEwkWRtb4Q=
=LTVd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Gabriel Genellina]

En Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:38:22 -0300, Michel Bouwmans
<mf***********@gmail.comescribió:

Gabriel Genellina wrote:

>En Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:31:42 -0300, Michel Bouwmans
<mf***********@gmail.comescribió:

>>Gabriel Genellina wrote:

>>>Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have
to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot developsomething using
the
open source license and later decide to switch to thecommercial
licence and buy it.

Unless you're a company with a risk of being checked forlegal software
etc., you can always ignore that allthough not very legal.

I just ignore Qt itself.

Then you're ignorant. What do you prefer than?

Yes I am. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't like Qt, I don't
like Qt license, my company doesn't use Qt and probably will never use it,
and what we do prefer is not your business.

--
Gabriel Genellina

[Dan Stromberg]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:43:28 +0000, David Cook wrote:

On 2008-04-11, Gabriel Ibanez <mo****@ibinsa.comwrote:

>Why is nobody talking about pyGTK ? There are no limits with licenses
(I think)

The OS X port is still pretty preliminary.

Dave Cook

I often use pygtk for my *ix projects, because it has a nice license and
it comes with most Linux distributions now.

It's also an easy install on windows using cygwin.

But I've never looked into it on Mac.

[Joe P. Cool]

On 12 Apr., 03:34, baalbek <[e-mail]:

Delphi/Object Pascal simply sucks big time!

I disagree. Delphi/Object Pascal with the VCL (Visual Component
Library) is one
of the most sophisticated IDEs ever, even better than Qt IMO. The only
drawback
is that it is Windows only.

No real control of your GUI design with Delphi, just a lot of point and
click

Wrong. It does have a GUI builder - a very good one - and you can do
point and
click creation of GUIs (nothing wrong with that) but you can also do
pure text
editor code only programming with it.

>*(did anyone mention waste of one's life?), and don't get me started on that
primitive, complete utter waste of language called Object Pascal!

I'm no big Pascal fan either but Object Pascal has a decent string
library and
better container literals than C/C++ and Java. The language itself is
a matter
of taste and I don't waste my time discussing it.

Python/wxPython/Glade == real programmer's toolkit

Object Pascal/Delphi == the hobbyist/beginner's toolkit

I'm pretty sure that there are more professional software products
written in Delphi than in wxPython.

[lxlaurax]

On 11 abr, 20:31, sturlamolden <[e-mail]:

On Apr 11, 5:01 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot develop something using the
open source license and later decide to switch to the commercial licence
and buy it.

Trolltech is afraid companies will buy one licence when the task is
done, as oppsed to one license per developer. In a commercial setting,
the Qt license is not expensive. It is painful for hobbyists wanting
to commercialize their products.

I have no experience with GUI programming in Python, but from this
discussion it seems if the type of license is not an issue (for FOSS
development), PyQt is the best tool because it is:
(a) easier to learn and intuitive for programming (this is important
to me; I am not that smart...);
(b) more stable (although many people have said that wxPython is as
stable as any other GUI nowadays; but not more stable (wx) than
others);
(c) more cross-platform (many people complain that they have to do a
lot of things in wxPython for the cross-platform).

Is (a) and (c) true or not? If so, how big are these advantages?

The great advantage of wxPython seems to be the huge community of
users and the large number of widgets/examples/applications available.

Reformulating my question:

Which GUI tool, wxPython or PyQt, is more pythonic? (Please, ignore
the license issue because I am thinking about FOSS)

Laura

[Benjamin]

On Apr 15, 9:17 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

On 11 abr, 20:31, sturlamolden <[e-mail]:

On Apr 11, 5:01 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Another annoying thing with the Qt license is that you have to choose it
at the very start of the project. You cannot develop something using the
open source license and later decide to switch to the commercial licence
and buy it.

Trolltech is afraid companies will buy one licence when the task is
done, as oppsed to one license per developer. In a commercial setting,
the Qt license is not expensive. It is painful for hobbyists wanting
to commercialize their products.

I have no experience with GUI programming in Python, but from this
discussion it seems if the type of license is not an issue (for FOSS
development), PyQt is the best tool because it is:
(a) easier to learn and intuitive for programming (this is important
to me; I am not that smart...);
(b) more stable (although many people have said that wxPython is as
stable as any other GUI nowadays; but not more stable (wx) than
others);
(c) more cross-platform (many people complain that they have to do a
lot of things in wxPython for the cross-platform).

Is (a) and (c) true or not? If so, how big are these advantages?

I find the PyQt API very well designed and intuitive. You can easily
write simple cross-platform apps in wxPython or PyQt, but wxPython
tends to have sketchy support in some places. Trolltech tries really
hard to smooth over all the platform differences, so I find it a bit
cleaner.

>
The great advantage of wxPython seems to be the huge community of
users and the large number of widgets/examples/applications available.

Reformulating my question:

Which GUI tool, wxPython or PyQt, is more pythonic? (Please, ignore
the license issue because I am thinking about FOSS)

None of them are very pythonic because they are all based on C++
toolkits. (sigh)

>
Laura

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

lx******@gmail.com writes:

On 11 abr, 20:31, sturlamolden <[e-mail]:

[...]

I have no experience with GUI programming in Python, but from this
discussion it seems if the type of license is not an issue (for
FOSS development), PyQt is the best tool because it is:

(a) easier to learn and intuitive for programming (this is
important to me; I am not that smart...);

(b) more stable (although many people have said that wxPython is
as stable as any other GUI nowadays; but not more stable (wx) than
others);

(c) more cross-platform (many people complain that they have to do
a lot of things in wxPython for the cross-platform).

Is (a) and (c) true or not? If so, how big are these advantages?

I really don't know what someone could mean with (c). (b) is
probably correct, however for both toolkits this is a not critical
from my observation (writing own programs and reading reports of
others). (a) is a matter of taste. I, for example, ruled out Qt
because I've never understood its mentality. I've read it over and
over again, but I didn't grasp it. It depends on your background
probably.

The great advantage of wxPython seems to be the huge community of
users and the large number of widgets/examples/applications
available.

Unless the Qt people simple can shout much louder, I think both
communities are equally sized, but I don't know for sure.

Reformulating my question:

Which GUI tool, wxPython or PyQt, is more pythonic?

In my opinion: none. This was important to me, too, so I looked at
it closely when I chose my GUI toolkit.

wxPython is traditionally considered unpythonic which is a bit
unfair now. They tweaked it a little in recent years and it is
reasonable pythonic now. It still has its warts, but Qt definitely
has them, too. If you want to have it clean, you must climb up to
another level of abstraction (Dabo, Wax etc). I wouldn't do this
because it gets slower and less well supported by a large community.

Tschö,
Torsten.

--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
Jabber ID: br*****@jabber.org
(See http://ime.webhop.org for further contact info.)

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

Joe P. Cool writes:

On 12 Apr., 03:34, baalbek <[e-mail]:

>Delphi/Object Pascal simply sucks big time!

I disagree. Delphi/Object Pascal with the VCL (Visual Component
Library) is one of the most sophisticated IDEs ever, even better
than Qt IMO. [...]

I was somewhat disappointed with Delphi. I had used Turbo Pascal 15
years ago, which was one of the best IDEs at that time. It was
really good. Now, we use Delphi in our institute for measurement
and automation applications with GUI.

It is probably possible to work equally well with Delphi, however,
none of us have found the right IDE settings for this yet.
Especially the behaviour after runtime errors seems to be
unpredictable to us, and it is mostly sub-optimal. After having
tested most of the dozens of checkboxes I could improve the
situation slightly but not more.

As far as the GUI composing is concerned, this is great with Delphi,
especially for beginners. However, I still prefer the text-only
programming in e.g. wxPython (and I'm equally fast with it) but this
is a matter of taste. It's like the Word vs LaTeX or Gnuplot vs
Origin thing I suppose.

All of us were utterly disappointed with the new help system. This
used to be a stronghold in Borland products but now, you get
explanations à la "Method 'foo': do foo with the object". Super.

[...]

Wrong. It does have a GUI builder - a very good one - and you can
do point and click creation of GUIs (nothing wrong with that) but
you can also do pure text editor code only programming with it.

This shows another disadvantage of such IDEs, namely the editor
question. The editor is a very personal piece of software, and I
ended up using Emacs for a lot of my Delphi work. I don't consider
myself a religious Emacs user -- I was really faster this way.
However, this throws away a lot of the IDE's advantages. Thus,
having everything in one system is only a good idea if you do
Delpi-only.

>(did anyone mention waste of one's life?), and don't get me
started on that primitive, complete utter waste of language
called Object Pascal!

I'm no big Pascal fan either but Object Pascal has a decent string
library and better container literals than C/C++ and Java. The
language itself is a matter of taste and I don't waste my time
discussing it.

Well, there also are objective issues with it that *can* be
discussed. You mentioned the string library. This is what caused a
lot of headaches here. There is a *lot* of doubled functionality
there because there seems to be a transition in Delphi from old to
new string functions. The difference between Wide Strings and
AnsiStrings is still obscure to me. In .NET Delphi, this seems to
have been cleaned up, but I haven't used it.

>Python/wxPython/Glade == real programmer's toolkit
Object Pascal/Delphi == the hobbyist/beginner's toolkit

I'm pretty sure that there are more professional software products
written in Delphi than in wxPython.

Certainly.

Tschö,
Torsten.

--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
Jabber ID: br*****@jabber.org
(See http://ime.webhop.org for further contact info.)

[bockman]

On 11 Apr, 20:19, Rune Strand <[e-mail]:

On Apr 10, 3:54 am, Chris Stewart <[e-mail]:
...

Next, what would you say is the best framework I should look into?
I'm curious to hear opinions on that.

GUI-programming in Python is a neanderthal experience. What one may
love with console scripts is turned upside-down. *Projects like Boa
Constructor seemed to be a remedy, but is not developed. The Iron-
Pythonistas has a very promising RAD GUI-tool in the IronPython -
Studio,http://www.codeplex.com/IronPythonStudio- but if you're non-
Iron, only sorrow is left - unless you fancy creating GUI in a text-
editor. Something I consider waste of life.

If you refer to lack of GUI designer, every toolkit usable by python -
barring Tkinter - has a GUI
designer wich can be used:

pygtk -Glade
pywx -wxDesigner, rxced, ...
pyqt -QDesigner, ...

All can generate python code and/or generate files that can be used by
python program to
create the whole GUI with a few function calls (e.g. libglade ).

If you refer to the lack of visual programming ala visualstudio or
JBorland, you might be right,
but I personally found that visual programming makes for very
unmaintenable code, especially if you have to
fix something and you don't have the IDE with you (and this has
happened many times to me).
Therefore I now prefer a clean separation between the GUI (described
in someting like glade files or .xrc files)
and my code.

BTW, once learned to use the right layout managers, even building a
GUI from scratch is not such a PITA, since you
don't have to manually place each widget anymore, but only define the
structure of packers and grids and then
adjust borders and such with some -limited IME - experimentation. I
know people that prefer this approach to any GUI builder, having
developed their own little library to help reducing the boilerplate
(and in Python you can do nice things with decorators ans such ... ).

So maybe yes, in python you might not have the fancy world of visual
programming, but neither are deprived of tools
that make your work easier.

Ciao
-----
FB

[TYR]

Who cares? Everyone does their GUI in a browser these days - keep up,
Dad. What we need is a pythonic front end.

/troll

[srf99]

I'd like to build a really simple GUI app *

that will work across Mac, Windows, and Linux.

You might look at easygui
http://www.ferg.org/easygui/index.html

That will give you something simple and workable. Then you can go on
to more advanced stuff at your leisure.

[sturlamolden]

On Apr 16, 4:17 am, [e-mail] wrote:

Reformulating my question:

Which GUI tool, wxPython or PyQt, is more pythonic? (Please, ignore
the license issue because I am thinking about FOSS)

None of them, all three of them (you forgot PyGTK), or it doesn't
matter more. Nobody with their head screwed on right hand code a UI.
There are graphical UI designers for that - QtDesigner, Glade,
wxFormBuilder. Notice how the VB, Delphi and .NET crowds are doing the
same.