Mike Meyer wrote: > Exactly what problem are you trying to solve? If it's the one about > not having a standard GUI, I don't think it's a problem.
Me neither. You pointed out that having a standard distribution made by some company would solve the non-standard GUI problem. I believe we share the same opinion, judging from this last post of yours. Maybe I missed something on your message and read it as if you had a different opinion. >> In fact this sounds more like a joke I've heard a while ago: standards, >> if you don't like the ones out there, create your own. > > Works for me. What works for you? You believe that chaos is better than having standards? I believe that flexibility is good, but not chaos. > I think you have me confused with someone else. I was responding to > someone who was claiming that the lack of a standard enterprise > strength GUI toolkit was a serious problem for Python - I disagree. I I dunno. Maybe I confused your words. I agree on disagreeing ;-) > won't recap the thread, but other languages have been *very* > successful without having a GUI as part of the language, all they had > was one development environment distributed with a GUI. One IDE, you mean? I believe the freedom to choose from multiple IDEs is also good. Some code on VI, others on Emacs, others on Eclipse, others on ... I agree that having multiple toolkits is good. > BTW, in answer to your rhetorical question about GUI's for Linux, the > answer is plwm. :-) And does it integrate well with common business apps, such as a mail client, note taking apps, addressbooks (with personal and shared entries), calendar with ability to share appointments, etc.? Be seeing you, -- Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
