On 2007-05-24, Stef Mientki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Finally, consider wax (http://zephyrfalcon.org/labs/wax.html). In my
>>>> view, this is *exactly* what python needs, and its not being maintained
>>>> anymore as far as I can tell. What I like about it is:
>>>>
>>>> 1) it is small...I can include the entire wax distribution in
>>>> my app with only a 780k footprint.
>>>>
>>>> 2) it is a very thin layer on wx, so when something doesn't quite work,
>>>> I can immediately fall back onto wx, mixing and matching wax and wx
>>>> objects. it's just that the wax objects have more pythonic calling and
>>>> use properties
>>>
>>> Sorry I don't know wax, but I wonder "a GUI designer without
>>> screenshots", is that Pythonic ;-)
>>
>> Uh, wha?
>
> quote original message:
> "I am looking for a pythonic, professional looking GUI framework."
>> Who are you quoting about the screenshots?
> Sorry, maybe I'm not Pythonic enough, but talking about "GUI
> framework", the first thing I want to see are screenshots.
0) While wax is a GUI framework, it is not a GUI designer, so I
was wondering who you were quoting when you wrote "a GUI
designer [...]".
1) Wax doesn't have any effect on the appearance of
applications, only on the appearance of the Python code used
to write the applications. So, screenshots are irrelevent.
If you want screenshots of what wxWidgets apps look like,
there are lots of them at wxWidgets.org. But, since
wxWidgets generally uses "native" widgets, wxWidget apps
look pretty much like any other app on the given platform.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! WHOA!! Ken and Barbie
at are having TOO MUCH FUN!!
visi.com It must be the NEGATIVE
IONS!!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
