On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:21:30 -0800, Daniel Crespo wrote: >> So wxPython doesn't need a runtime? I don't think so. wxPython for me >> sucks under Linux (built on gtk2) and I don't like its API at all. It >> seems a bit awkward to me. Anyway... what do you mean with "much better" ? > > It's much better:
> - Its portability is superior over PyGTK Mmmh, I haven't used pyGTK a lot so I can't really compare them but in my experience wxPython is very unstable on anything but Windows (in fact it's not wxPython's fault but wxWidget's of course)... Seems to have gotten better with newer releases. > - Its look & feel is superior over PyGTK (except in Linux) No, its look & feel is the one of the underlying platform, though I think the term "underlying platform" has meaning only on Windows and MacOS. Of course a Windows user will be more at ease with a wx application than with a GTK one, but that doesn't mean Windows look & feel is better than GTK (maybe it is, but I think it's a matter of taste). > Under windows, only needs some dlls (they are its runtime), and works > perfect. The same exe works on Win98, ME, 2000, XP. Of course that > there are some differences between these OSs. I concur, wxPython is perfect for Windows apps. It's far less than perfect for Linux though, and I haven't tried it on MacOS yet. Shameless plug: I once wrote a rant about wxPython (warning: flame material ahead): http://fraca7.free.fr/blog/index.php?2005/04/04/10-a-word-about-guis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
