On 12/16/05, Christopher Roach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter, > > I agree with all of the comments you just made on Ltk, but I wanted to > add one more--simplicity. I believe that one of the main reasons that > Tk has been ported to so many systems and to so many languages is that > is so very simple to get a working GUI up and running in no time. It > just seens to fit a dynamic language better than any other GUI > library. The way I look at it is, if you want to do some quick text > manipulation on a few files on your hard drive you're going to use a > language like Perl or Python not C or C++, you're going to reserve > C/C++ for the larger more complex tasks. By the same line of reason, > Tk is ideally suited for tasks that need a small GUI quickly. E.g., > If I wrote a great little script in Lisp for manipulating cronjobs or > something and wanted to give it my friends who run OS X, but don't > neccessarily want to deal with the CLI, I'm going to use Tk, since I > can have the GUI up and running in smallest possible time. For a > major application, I'll probably look into larger and more complicated > GUI libraries (such as Qt, or even Cocoa with OpenMCL). > > IMO, one GUI library does not fit all, its nice to have the right > tools for the right job. >
I fully agree. Ltk is all about simplicity. That was the idea, when I created it. However, I also have to add, that using it on large applications, it scaled much better than I thought. But the reason I do not feel ashamed to advertise Ltk, currently it is the only one GUI toolkit which is open source and running on mosts Lisps and operation systems. So whenever a newbie starts looking into Lisp GUIs (and I think the lisp garden project is all about helping people entering the Lisp world), then Ltk is an excellent starting point. Peter _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
