On Jan 18, 9:27 pm, Corey Richardson <kb1...@aim.com> wrote: > > Why would you add in only a part of wxPython, instead of all of it? Is > the work to cut it down really an advantage over the size of the full > toolkit? From what I just checked, the source tarball is 40MB. Can that > much really be added to the Python stdlib? What other alternatives are > there, besides wxPython, that are perhaps a bit smaller. > The source tarball from the wxPython.org website contains a full version of wxWidgets in addition to the actual wxPython functionality. A python distribution would certainly contain solely the latter and require the end user to already have wxWidgets installed in a suitable fashion. The actual full wxPython binding is ~100 MiB uncompressed, ~15 MiB compressed BZIP2, but it also includes a lot of stuff that could possibly be removed and/or reduced, like full documentation, examples, etc. It can be shrunk even further by taking a dependency on swig and regenerating the bindings at compile time (they're shipped prebuilt). At which point, it's pretty damn small. Not as small as all of the Tk functionality, I think, but well under 10MiB compressed.
The problem to me isn't the size (though some might find it objectionable), but the system dependencies you have to take: wxWidgets requires GTK+ on UNIX, which requires a whole mess of crap in term, plus swig, plus whatever else I may or may not be missing. I'm also not 100% certain as to whether it's as portable as Tk is today. At any rate, if the size is an issue, culling widgets is a lot of an effort for not much of a gain, especially when you look at the bigger picture of, "Every file I have to download to build python from scratch" Minimizing what's in the Python distribution does not change the size of the dependency set one bit, and that dwarfs the python code in any case. That is what you want to avoid in my opinion. Adam -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list