John Cowan wrote: > [...] > If you want a small stable toolkit, use Tk. It's not sexy and earlier > versions didn't have native L&F, but it works. Best yet, we already > have an egg for it. > [...]
Hello, I vote against Tk, because in my humble opinion * Tk is not a small toolkit and it bloats your applications even more because you need a second scripting runtime -- Tcl or Perl -- to use it. I find that only acceptable if I'm programming in Tcl or Perl anyway. * Tk is not very stable -- some experience with Perl/Tk teaches me that it's extremely easy to produce segfaults and infinite hangs with seemingly correct Tk code for obscure reasons. * Tk is not very portable -- even screen coordinates for drawing in canvasses work differently on Windows and Unix implementations of Tk. * I don't like the idea of using the CHICKEN Tk egg for production code because a GUI library should not need to spawn a different language interpreter subprocess and control GUI interaction by reading and writing code to and from a pipe. That's like controlling a database by spawning an SQL shell and interacting with it using pipes. I don't think it's a clean approach. And of course its very inefficient too, especially given the fact that Tcl evaluates strings to strings all the time... cu, Thomas _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users