«

I get the strong feeling that nobody is really happy with the state of
Python GUIs.
Tkinter is not widely liked, but is widely distributed. WxPython and
PyGtk are both
powerful, but quirky in different ways. PyQt is tied to one platform.
And there are
dozens more.

Whether or not we like graphics programming, it's not going to go
away. I get the
uneasy feeling whenever I start a new project that there should be a
'better' GUI
than the ones I currently use (WxPython and PyGtk).

Fragmentation is our enemy. Our resources are being dissipated. Is it
not time to
start again? We have shown that it is possible to do the right thing,
by creating Python3.

I ask the group; should we try to create a new GUI for Python, with
the following
properties?:

- Pythonic
- The default GUI (so it replaces Tkinter)
- It has the support of the majority of the Python community
- Simple and obvious to use for simple things
- Comprehensive, for complicated things
- Cross-platform
- Looks good (to be defined)
- As small as possible in its default form

If so, what are the next steps?

The Python SIG on GUIs closed years ago. Should that be revived?

This is "A Modest Proposal" (J. Swift). In a sense, I am suggesting
that
we eat our own babies.

But don't we owe it to the community?

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:22 PM, ant <> wrote:
> I get the strong feeling that nobody is really happy with the state of
> Python GUIs.
> Tkinter is not widely liked, but is widely distributed. WxPython and
> PyGtk are both
> powerful, but quirky in different ways. PyQt is tied to one platform.
> And there are
> dozens more.
>
> Whether or not we like graphics programming, it's not going to go
> away. I get the
> uneasy feeling whenever I start a new project that there should be a
> 'better' GUI
> than the ones I currently use (WxPython and PyGtk).
>
> Fragmentation is our enemy. Our resources are being dissipated. Is it
> not time to
> start again? We have shown that it is possible to do the right thing,
> by creating Python3.
>
> I ask the group; should we try to create a new GUI for Python, with
> the following
> properties?:
>
> - Pythonic
> - The default GUI (so it replaces Tkinter)
> - It has the support of the majority of the Python community
> - Simple and obvious to use for simple things
> - Comprehensive, for complicated things
> - Cross-platform
> - Looks good (to be defined)
> - As small as possible in its default form
>
> If so, what are the next steps?
>
> The Python SIG on GUIs closed years ago. Should that be revived?
>
> This is "A Modest Proposal" (J. Swift). In a sense, I am suggesting
> that
> we eat our own babies.
>
> But don't we owe it to the community?

No.

http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/python_gui/

Geremy Condra

ant <shimbo <at> uklinux.net> writes:

> PyQt is tied to one platform.

What do you mean one platform?

On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 19:22 -0700, ant wrote:
> I get the strong feeling that nobody is really happy with the state of
> Python GUIs.

> WxPython and PyGtk are both powerful, but quirky in different ways.

All widget libraries are quirky - because sophisticated user interfaces
are complicated. If you make a new one that is sophisticated enough to
be really useful - it will be "quirky".

> PyQt is tied to one platform.

No it isn't.

> Whether or not we like graphics programming, it's not going to go
> away. I get the
> uneasy feeling whenever I start a new project that there should be a
> 'better' GUI
> than the ones I currently use (WxPython and PyGtk).
>
> Fragmentation is our enemy.

So fragment some more? And at least PyGtk is a wrapper around Gtk, so
in a sense that is anti-fragmentation. It is reusing Gtk which is also
reused as Gtk# by Mono/.NET and other bindings.

> Our resources are being dissipated. Is it not time to start again?

No.

> I ask the group; should we try to create a new GUI for Python, with
> the following properties?:
> - Pythonic
> - The default GUI (so it replaces Tkinter)
> - It has the support of the majority of the Python community
> - Simple and obvious to use for simple things
> - Comprehensive, for complicated things
> - Cross-platform
> - Looks good (to be defined)
> - As small as possible in its default form

Good luck. Seems pointless to me.

> But don't we owe it to the community?

Seems like there are already several very mature options.

On 06/05/2010 08:22 PM, ant wrote:
> WxPython and PyGtk are both powerful, but quirky in different ways.
> PyQt is tied to one platform. And there are dozens more.

In what way is PyQt (or the new PySide bindings) tied to one platform?
PyQt is "native" on Win32, Mac, and Linux. Would your universal GUI be
any less quirky?

> I ask the group; should we try to create a new GUI for Python, with
> the following properties?:
> <snip>
> - Comprehensive, for complicated things - Cross-platform
Most GUI toolkits currently are, to some degree or another. Qt is the
most comprehensive cross-platform toolkit that I know of. You can
pretty much do any application operation using its API.

> - Looks good (to be defined)
Does that mean it looks native? Should it be native? Does not the
Tkinter gui look "good?"

I can think of at least the following reasons why a new universal GUI
for Python will have acceptance issues:
- stuck with the lowest common denominator of functionality on each
platform if you thunk to native widgets (a la wxWidgets)
- often look and feel is not quite native even when using native themes
(GTK on windows, for example)
- if you take the Java Swing approach, you'll look out of place
everywhere, which is kind of where tkinter is now.

On 06/06/10 12:22, ant wrote:
> I get the strong feeling that nobody is really happy with the state of
> Python GUIs.
> Tkinter is not widely liked, but is widely distributed. WxPython and
> PyGtk are both
> powerful, but quirky in different ways. PyQt is tied to one platform.
> And there are
> dozens more.
>
> Whether or not we like graphics programming, it's not going to go
> away. I get the
> uneasy feeling whenever I start a new project that there should be a
> 'better' GUI
> than the ones I currently use (WxPython and PyGtk).
>
> Fragmentation is our enemy. Our resources are being dissipated. Is it
> not time to
> start again? We have shown that it is possible to do the right thing,
> by creating Python3.
>
> I ask the group; should we try to create a new GUI for Python, with
> the following
> properties?:
>
> - Pythonic
> - The default GUI (so it replaces Tkinter)
> - It has the support of the majority of the Python community
> - Simple and obvious to use for simple things
> - Comprehensive, for complicated things
> - Cross-platform
> - Looks good (to be defined)
> - As small as possible in its default form
>
> If so, what are the next steps?
>
> The Python SIG on GUIs closed years ago. Should that be revived?
>
> This is "A Modest Proposal" (J. Swift). In a sense, I am suggesting
> that
> we eat our own babies.
>
> But don't we owe it to the community?

Pick any two:
- Simple
- Beautiful
- Cross-platform

Aren't all programms going webbased in the near future ?
And if so, wouldn't it be better to hook to GWT or something like that
(I can't oversee all the conesquences)?
cheers,
Stef Mientki

On 06-06-2010 04:22, ant wrote:
> I get the strong feeling that nobody is really happy with the state of
> Python GUIs.
> Tkinter is not widely liked, but is widely distributed. WxPython and
> PyGtk are both
> powerful, but quirky in different ways. PyQt is tied to one platform.
> And there are
> dozens more.
>
> Whether or not we like graphics programming, it's not going to go
> away. I get the
> uneasy feeling whenever I start a new project that there should be a
> 'better' GUI
> than the ones I currently use (WxPython and PyGtk).
>
> Fragmentation is our enemy. Our resources are being dissipated. Is it
> not time to
> start again? We have shown that it is possible to do the right thing,
> by creating Python3.
>
> I ask the group; should we try to create a new GUI for Python, with
> the following
> properties?:
>
> - Pythonic
> - The default GUI (so it replaces Tkinter)
> - It has the support of the majority of the Python community
> - Simple and obvious to use for simple things
> - Comprehensive, for complicated things
> - Cross-platform
> - Looks good (to be defined)
> - As small as possible in its default form
>
> If so, what are the next steps?
>
> The Python SIG on GUIs closed years ago. Should that be revived?
>
> This is "A Modest Proposal" (J. Swift). In a sense, I am suggesting
> that
> we eat our own babies.
>
> But don't we owe it to the community?
>

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:42:30 +0200, Stef Mientki wrote:

> Aren't all programms going webbased in the near future ?


Yes, just wait until somebody builds a web-browser that runs in your web-
browser!


--
Steven

On Jun 6, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> Yes, just wait until somebody builds a web-browser that runs in your web-
> browser!

There you go:

"A good browser should be able to reproduce itself. Safari 4, built entirely with valid HTML5 and CSS3."

http://general-metrics.com/Safari/

On 06/06/10 22:09, Petite Abeille wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Yes, just wait until somebody builds a web-browser that runs in your web-
>> browser!
>
> There you go:
>
> "A good browser should be able to reproduce itself. Safari 4, built entirely with valid HTML5 and CSS3."
>

Can't wait to see "Download Firefox for Chrome OS"