Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What does the app need to do? I'd try to make it web based unless > > there's a good reason not to. That's even if it just runs on the > > user's desktop; run the http listener on the localhost and let the > > user connect to it with a browser. > > I'm not sure I'd agree with this advice. It's easier than it used to > be to put a good-looking web interface together, but considerably more > difficult still than using either wxPython or PyQT.
I think I can put together a useable (but not visually stunning) web interface faster than I can put together any pure client-side interface. Making the web interface look really good might be harder than making wx or QT look really good, but for lots of applications, "useable" is good enough. > The web is still clunky for certain types of interaction, as you > either have to completely redisplay after a server round-trip or > closely co-ordinate client-side code to keep some interactions local > to the client. True, and applications that can't stand that redisplay are an example of a good reason not to use a web interface. But for many apps, the redisplay is ok. And a little client-side JS here or there isn't THAT hard to deal with and can help a lot. > Both packages are maintained be people who know what they are > doing. wxPython has had its issues over the years, but many of those > have (I believe) been due to the instability of the underlying > wxWindows (no wxWidgets) package, which in turn has often been due to > the introduction of serious chunks of new functionality. Fair enough, but we have to consider wxPython to encompass the whole suite including wxWidgets and GTK and whatever. For functionality purposes I've found tkinter to be adequate so far, but it sure doesn't look as nice on the screen as the other packages. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
