On 06/07/10 10:48, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 17:03 -0700, AD. wrote: >> On Jun 7, 10:55 am, ant <shi...@uklinux.net> wrote: >>> My concern is simple: I think that Python is doomed to remain a minor >>> language unless we crack this problem. >> I'm curious why you think fragmented GUI choices is a particular >> problem for Python compared to other languages? Or why this is the >> main issue holding Python back? > > The base assumption is: there is some core issue holding Python back? > > Nah.
Any thought about drag-and-drop GUI builder in IDLE? >> .NET/C# has had preferred GUI APIs come and go and isn't exactly what >> I'd call crossplatform, > > Well, if you use Gtk# for your GUI it is probably one of the [if not > "the"] most cross-platform development solution for complex fat-clients. > >> Looking at the state of other languages and their GUI toolkit >> landscape, someone might even come to the conclusion that having one >> true GUI toolkit is potentially a bad thing for a language. > > +1 In the end the relationships with GUI toolkits is far more about > tool-chain and documentation then it is about language. If there was an > awesome IDE that allowed RAD [of real complex applications] in toolkit X > then people will use toolkit X. [Monodevelop and it's awesome Gtk# > support for Mono/.NET is a good example; the tool makes the toolkit > east to use - people go with the toolkit]. The problem with the current GUI toolkits is their API is designed to be cross-language (i18n). I'd say, keep the current GUI toolkits, make their API easier to use (l10n). In other words, current GUI API can be used everywhere (IOW, their API works well accross many languages); but all those GUI API also feels foreign everywhere (IOW, their API always feels like borrowed from another language). To abuse the language, i18n goal is already achieved, l10n is not met yet. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
