On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:49:28 PM UTC+5:30, Benjamin Kaplan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:55 AM, rusi wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 12, 2013 10:21:49 PM UTC+5:30, Benjamin Kaplan wrote: > > > > >> The main difference between wx and qt is that qt looks native on every > >> platform > >> while wx *is* native on every platform (it uses native controls wherever > >> possible). This means that wx integrates into the OS better, but your also > >> more > >> likely to need OS-specific tweaks in wx, at least from my experience from > >> a few > >> years ago. > > > > For someone who is GUI-challenged, can you please expand on that a bit? > > -- > > Sure. Every platform provides its own GUI library (Cocoa on Mac OS X, > Win32 on Windows). Other programs that want to hook into yours, such > as screen readers, are familiar with the platform's native GUI > elements- it knows what a Win32 combo box is, and it knows how to read > the text inside it. > > > The other way to make a GUI is to take a blank canvas and draw on it > yourself. This is more flexible and provides a more consistent > experience across platforms, but unless you specifically go out of > your way to provide hooks for other programs to jump in, all they see > is a bunch of pixels on the screen. In addition, drawing your own > stuff won't necessarily give you the "normal for the operating system" > behavior on other things, like tab behavior. It's possible for > non-native GUI environments to mimic this behavior (and QT does a > pretty good job of this), but there's always going to be little things > that seem a bit off.
Thanks for the explanation. However I am not able to square it up: You seem to be saying that QT draws on a blank canvas rather than calling out to the OS library. You also seem to be saying that QT (for the most part) Does the Right Thing for each platform. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
