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:
<psaff...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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:
> 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.
Alexandre Badez <alexandre.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 10:13 am, "psaff...@googlemail.com" > <psaff...@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:
> 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!
On Oct 12, 12:30 pm, Nick Craig-Wood <n...@craig-wood.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:
> > 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. >From my point of view, PyQt is very good. Qt is very actively
developed and maintained, and the PyQt binding is of very good quality, and fully documented. I have used personally for several cross-platform projects and it worked like a charm.
I like Qt's approach and extensive documentation. I've found that it works both for complex GUI as for quick'n dirty. There is usually a widget to do just what I need so that I can focus on my application logic instead of on the GUI code.
In short, usage of Qt has driven me to love it.
When looking at the other guis, I always find that the documentation is under my expectations, or that that things are quite complex to set- up to get what you need.
On Oct 12, 12:30 pm, Nick Craig-Wood <n...@craig-wood.com> wrote:
> I'd recommend wxPython over those becase
> 1) native look and feel on all platforms
You get it with PyQt as well.
> 2) doesn't require expensive licensing for non-commercial apps (QT)
You mean "doesn't require expensive licensing for close source apps". Open source apps are free of charge. For professional developments, I bought the Qt license several times in the past because it was worth the time saved in my opinion.
> 3) Isn't a pain to install on windows (GTK)
You get it with Qt as well. I was able to use it even as a windows newbie.
<psaff...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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/showfiles.php?group_id=165637 (download tkinter-wrappers)
On 10/12/07, psaff...@googlemail.com <psaff...@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 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.
On 2007-10-12, Alexandre Badez <alexandre.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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!!
> 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)
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.
On Fri Oct 12 12:30:13 CEST 2007, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> 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)
"Expensive" licensing is not required if you use the GNU General Public License (version 2) for your software, or a license that falls under the Trolltech GPL Exception:
On Fri Oct 12 12:30:13 CEST 2007, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> 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)
"Expensive" licensing is not required if you use the GNU General Public License (version 2) for your software, or a license that falls under the Trolltech GPL Exception:
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.
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/siliconisland/2006/12/allinone_win32_.html - it looks nice and simple (it is originally the Gimp toolkit).
> 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:
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.
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.
> 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.
On 2007-10-13, David Tremouilles <david.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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
> 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+-'])"
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.
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.
