On Oct 3, 1:39 pm, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/3/07, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 2007-10-03, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/2/07, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On 2007-10-02, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > PyGtk has poor cross platform support, a very large footprint (the > > >> > largest of all these libraries) > > > >> It's larger than wxWidgets on top of Gtk? > > > > No, but it's larger than wx on top of the native API, > > > A moot point for X11. > > wxWidgets actually does have a raw X11 implementation,
Wait though. If I want to use wxPython, my python code calls wxWidgets code which calls gtk. So, it would seem simpler to remove 1 layer and just call the gtk code directly via PyGTK. > > > > so when you average it across all platforms it's quite a bit > > > larger. > > > I guess that's one of the costs of portability. > > Eh? The point is that wxWidgets, the more portable toolkit, is > *smaller* than Gtk. It's not really related to portability as much as > design considerations. Isn't wxWidgets smaller that GTK+ simply because it's a wrapper and doesn't do its own drawing? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
