On Mar 5, 7:42 pm, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:49 AM, ErichCart ErichCart <erichc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Visual Python seems to be exactly what I want. But it doesn't seem > > very popular. Perhaps it means that there are not many people who will > > be able to help if I have problems with it. Also judging by the amount > > of ads at visualpython.org, it also doesn't seem very serious. > > > I looked into pyGTK, and I found something called "Glade", which seems > > to be something similar to visual python. The latest version of Glade > > was released just this month, so it seems to be actively developed. > > > Regarding Boa constructor, it is very old, isn't it? The latest news > > from this project date to the end of 2006. I don't expect it to > > support python 3 any time soon. > > > So, "Glade", is this what everybody uses? I mean programmers don't > > just use text editors to make GUI applications, do they? > > Yes, they do. It isn't that bad once you get used to it,
Agreed. > and it beats > the snot out of trying to maintain the insensible gibberish that some > of the autogen tools put out. I have a lot of experience with Qt Designer, I don't know about any of the other tools: 1. Qt Designer produces sensible well-formed XML, not gibberish. 2. The whole point of the tool is that you should _never_ have to edit the code it produces - if you need to extend ui designs, you do this by sub- classing. > On a side note, you should check out pygui[0]- very, very nice GUI toolkit. Yay, looks good. Thanks, Greg. John -- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
