> > On 12/13/05, Jean-François Brouillet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I see it, there is much speaking for Ltk. I haven't actually > used it, but Tk is working pretty much everywhere, and what I've > understood from cll reports is that it uses a socket/server approach, > which is rather portable, and people seem to like it. > > I'd like to say McCLIM, but there is a bit more starting distance > required for that than for a Tk-based approach, I believe.
I've used Ltk for a project and I like it quite a bit. The source is easy to understand, and the documentation is a suitable Gardeners project. In the break between college semesters I was planning on reimplementing the standard Tk demo program in Ltk for examples. (Folks using Ruby-Tk don't even bother to translate the documentation into English, just this program.) I have managed to bundle and/or run applications with Ltk on Windows, Linux and OS X. The only requirement is a Tcl/Tk binary. Tclkit works, which means all requirements can be included in one (small) download. McCLIM works well on Mac and Linux, but the most mature backend is the CLX backend. A dependency on X kills hopes of Windows use (for beginners). The toolkit has a very lispy design, but is somewhat unusual in contrast to mainstream GUIs. That, more than its stability or work required, is a stumbling block for beginners. --Dwight _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
