Hi Brendan,
On Feb 9, 2005, at 7:09 AM, Brendan Simons wrote:
It doesn't matter how cheap and fast it is for 5% of the market.
If you look at open source graphical toolkits that support at least two platforms, you won't find any that started on the Mac. These are the ones I know of that can be used from Python and where they started.
- QT (Unix) - GTK (Unix) - wxWidgets (Windows) - Tk (Unix) - Fltk (Unix) - Fox (Unix)
Consequently the Mac versions of these (if supported at all) is often not as good as the original platform.
(Sorry, I don't see the original message in my inbox, so am responding to both posts at once.)
Well, depending on what is meant by "as good as" you can give any answer to this question. ;-) If you mean 100% optimized for that platform, well, it's doubtful any toolkit except for the native ones will reach that lofty goal, just as no program but Microsoft Word will ever reach 100% Word compatibility. (Actually, even IT doesn't achieve that goal, but anyways...)
But the reason all of this is basically silly to discuss is that in the end it's about needs. For example:
1) Are there Mac-specific features your app needs that the cross-platform toolkit doesn't have?
2) How important is cross-platform support for your app?
3) What's your budget/resources for development, or for a Mac port?
Depending on your needs, wxWidgets (or Real Basic, etc.) may very well support everything you're looking for. If you have other needs, then maybe Mac only is the way to go. (i.e. wxPython does have an emulated list control, an issue we hopefully will have resolved for 2.8, along with CoreGraphics drawing!) Emulated toolkits don't support native LNF in any real sense so unless you want emulated they're plain out. But "as good as" discussions are largely academic. You can always use it to make the point you want by just messing with the criteria you use. Depending on the criteria (i.e. site compatibility), one can 'prove' that Safari and Mozilla both are clearly inferior to IE. Once you add another criteria, though (i.e. security or on Mac lack of updates), the whole equation changes. But the only real use of said discussions is trying to "scare" someone into using another product or taking a certain approach.
So, my advice to anyone doing GUI development - try what's out there and see what suits you, then use it. Period. While I can certainly see the merit in discussing specific shortcomings of a toolkit (and hopefully discussing solutions, too!) I don't see much merit at all in these simple "this toolkit is inferior because it's not made on Mac" type of discussions that keep popping up.
[snip]
This just goes to show that there IS money to be made catering to mac users. In fact, the only reason I've switched to Python is to future-proof my applications. (But I would -love- to have an IDE / gui builder as simple as the one that came with RB)
Yes, the IDE department is an area that cross-platform development could really use some improvement in! The trick is getting it right, because you have to abstract layout to some degree in order to support the HIGs of the various platforms but also make everything 'drag and drop' GUI.
Thanks,
Kevin
_______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
