Danny Pansters wrote: [some eliding]
I find this a tad biased. Let me try to counter a bit and provide some more info.
Oh, I admit I am a bit prejudiced. I might be a bit more than a little, even. I heartily dislike C++ (I find it FAR too complicated for it's feature set). I Like Python, but I dislike Perl, for very nearly the same reasons as C++, except in the case of perl, it's even worse.
I also admit a prejudice against precompilers, but sir, I ADMITTED THAT UP FRONT! Read it, I said it out front that it was a "very personal prejudice". If I go out of my way to show that it's an opinion with more than one side, then I find your complaining about it in very poor taste. I'm not against your disagreeing, I just don't appreciate you calling me biased over it, not when I try so hard to be fair.
Note I am not commenting (yet) on the meat of your opinions. I like your opinions. I disagree in many cases, but I like the way you expressed them.
One could also argue that qt has a bootload more high level functionality. And "based upon a preprocessor"? You mean it's C++?
No, how about I call up an example I think that most of us have hit, the sql precompilers, stuff that has you putting stuff like $READ into you C code. stuff that is illgal in C, but precompiled away. That's what "moc" is, right? I do not like precompilers. I am not talking about cpp. Gnome does the job without precompilers, proving at least that it CAN be done without it.
Yes. So is wxwidgets (FKA
wxwindows) which is another fine toolkit. Python bindings to any of them might have a bit less functionality than the native C or C++ toolkits but generally their amount of functionality reflects that of the underlying toolkit.
True. I find Python's fantastic ease, in being able to bring in all those outside toolkits, one of it's greatest strengths. I'm absolutely in LOVE with pygtk | pyqt | (about 6 others). All done without precomilers. Of course, that arguments makes little sense here.
Another thing you might want to consider is, leaerning python, and then using python's incredible facilities to program directly in gtk (see pygtk) or qt (see pyqt). I have myself done a large job in pygtk, it's a great environment to work in, a very rich programming environment for gui work.
I like using python for both low level stuff (or quick-and-dirty scripts) and GUI stuff. It's very versatile with lots of added modules. The base modules are pretty much optimized for speed, no need to try and reinvent the wheel. I played with py-gtk a bit (with ROX desktop) but found it a little cumbersome.
I also used py-wx for a little accounting app for my own which I wanted to be able to run on both *NIX and Windows. On *NIX it renders as gtk widgets, on Win32 natively.
But qt (py-qt) definately has the most functionality to get started with. I never really done a project with it and am personally more interested in py-kde (which builds upon it), but it surely has a lot of stuff ready to use to build a complex app using python.
So just out of curiosity, because I am more at ease with pygtk than pyqt, what is it that you can do in pyqt that I can't in pygtk?
There's also a py-anygui that abstracts widgets (with some limitations of course) and then you can deploy them with py-gtk, py-wx, py-qt, py-kde, py-ncurses...).
Don't like that, too little features, lost while chasing the god of cross-architectures.
Also python has lots of very useful modules, lots more unofficial ones which at the very least you can use as starting point. So yeah, considering today's processors and RAM the average PC has, python is certainly something to consider.
HTH,
_______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
