GUIs - A Modest Proposal
in [Python]
|
From: Steven D'Aprano on 15 Jun 2010 10:47 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:57:13 -0700, lkcl wrote: > to be honest, if you don't put any effort in to use the appropriate > "lovely-prettiness" panels you can end up with something truly "90s- > esque". but with a little effort you can do round-edged lovely colour > tabs: > http://pyjs.org/examples/tabpanelwidget/output/Tabs.html All I get is a plain page with no content. No images, no text, nothing. Shouldn't you at least include "This site requires Javascript to work"? You know, I like the idea of pyjamas, but I am so utterly sick and tired of javascript and flash running amok and web developers who try to take over my browser that I've turned them off. -- Steven
From: lkcl on 16 Jun 2010 06:29 On Jun 15, 2:47 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:57:13 -0700, lkcl wrote: > > to be honest, if you don't put any effort in to use the appropriate > > "lovely-prettiness" panels you can end up with something truly "90s- > > esque". but with a little effort you can do round-edged lovely colour > > tabs: > > http://pyjs.org/examples/tabpanelwidget/output/Tabs.html > > All I get is a plain page with no content. No images, no text, nothing. > Shouldn't you at least include "This site requires Javascript to work"? naaah. that would mean adding one extra line with a noscript tag to the html loader page, increasing size of each of the example loader pages by a whopping ten percent! :) > You know, I like the idea of pyjamas, but I am so utterly sick and tired > of javascript and flash running amok and web developers who try to take > over my browser that I've turned them off. _hurrah_! i used to write web apps entirely server-side, no AJAX, no JS, nothing, precisely to cater exactly for this feeling, which i entirely agreed with. then i went absolute 100% the other way. i had _nothing_ good to say about javascript, but by abstracting out to python, i found the "wiggly path" that leverages its powerful bits without falling into the trap of the god-awful mess that causes you to rightly switch off JS entirely. fortunately, for you, with pyjd you're in luck: python bindings to DOM, doing exactly the same job as the equivalent JS - all JS gooone. l.
From: lkcl on 16 Jun 2010 08:17 On Jun 15, 1:07 pm, superpollo <ute...(a)esempio.net> wrote: > mind you, i am no python expert, but i really look forward to seeing > pyjamas in the stdlib :-) anytime soon? *choke* :) ... weelll... let me answer that as if it's serious. you'd have to: a) define http://python.org as including a javascript target for its output. given that pypy have (or had) this, that's not entiiirely outside of the realms of possibility. b) include ooo 10,000 lines of base UI widget libraries, which are all written in pure python. again, not so bad. c) completely rule out any possibility of pyjd because whilst the win32 dependency is python-comtypes (which depends on ctypes which whoops rules _that_ out) the free software dependencies are a choice between pygtk2 plus xulrunner, libcairo, python-cairo, gobject plus python-gobject and many more plus python-xpcom _plus_ python-hulahop, or webkitgtk plus pywebkitgtk plus again many of the same pygtk dependencies, each of which will come to around a whopping 30mb download comprising some 90 to 100 separate libraries in each case... and that's without dealing with the multitude of licenses. ... and without pyjd it's somewhat a pointless exercise. overall i think this just reaffirms that the minimalist but extensible python-tk approach really does have distinct advantages. thus, at last, we come back full circle to the original question. hooray! l.
From: Cameron Laird on 16 Jun 2010 14:45 On Jun 6, 5:49 pm, Kevin Walzer <k...(a)codebykevin.com> wrote: . [much wisdom, particularly in regard to Tkinter] . . > > The very diversity of GUI toolkits came into effect because Python is > very easy to extend and integrate with other C/C++ libraries. Writing a > GUI toolkit from scratch is much, much harder. Even a simple toolkit > like Tk has twenty years of developer-hours behind it. Do you really > think the Python community will be able to a) agree on the design of a > new toolkit to replace Tkinter and b) implement the code in a timely > fashion across multiple platforms? It sounds like an impossible goal to me. . . . Several people (other than Kevin) have written about Tkinter's "non-standard"/unsatisfying/... appearance. Those who last looked at it several years ago will probably do well to fire up an instance and view the Tile widgets it now offers. While I don't know nearly enough to guarantee that they'll please everyone, they're at least different from the Tkinter of 2005, and at least some of the differences are in directions mentioned in this thread.
From: Matt on 16 Jun 2010 18:33
On 06/05/2010 09:22 PM, ant wrote: > PyQt is tied to one platform. Several posters have asked for support for or clarification of this claim of yours. On its face it seems to be nonsense. So just what are you talking about? |