>There is a lot of documentation, and plenty of examples, for Tk, but they >are Tcl based. This is, for me at least, a significant obstacle to >switching to use >Tkx. Until that changes (and it is several months since I >looked*), or I get a better understanding of Tcl, and I don't currently >have either the time or a >pressing need for that, I don't see me using Tkx >in the near future.
Well, the doc side is worrisome, agreed >My advice to the OP is to try writing a demo, or proof of concept, programs >using both Tk and Tkx, and make your decision based on that. If you decide >on >using Tkx, then publishing those demo programs would be of great use to >those trying to make the same decision as you, or those who are familiar >with Tk >wondering how to use Tkx. I would certainly be in the latter >group. As I have no prior familiarity with either (beyond reading the book on Perl/Tk), it seems like I might as well plunge straight into Tkx considering that it seems to be a more future-proof path. I'll just have to endure the lack of (or at least, the Tcl based) docs. I think...well, I'm not quite into the stage where I have to start grappling with it, so I'll ponder it for a bit... Thanks for your help, ken1 _______________________________________________ ActivePerl mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
