On Tuesday 27 April 2010 12:36:30 Matti Airas wrote: > Also, I don't think your claim of the project's main point being > creating a Pythonic API completely resonates with the stated project > goals [1]. For me, the first priority has always been to create > liberally licensed Qt bindings for Python with a complete toolchain > available. Secondly, we have aimed for API-compatibility with PyQt. This > is a valuable goal in itself as it provides for much easier > interoperability and easier adoption of PySide. However, we have opted > to not do it blindly but make a conscious decision for adopting any new > PyQt APIs. That's the process we're in right now. So yes, we can strive > for a more Pythonic API but that should be done carefully and in a way > minimizing the impact for existing Python Qt developers.
A big +1 to this (not that I matter that much). IMHO The only thing worse to having two bindings is having two incompatible bindings, so while the incompatibility is bound to grow with time and as the two projects diverge and each introduce new, specific features, but the further this general compatibility period can be pushed out, the better (for both bindings, and thus all users, IMHO). This is also the reason why you have probably already seen me lobby on irc for having at least a rough agreement for not breaking (*especially* Maemo specific) APIs out of NIH reasons. Regards, Attila _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
