Hi Phillipe, An excellent and well argued post. One thing I'm curious about is where does the RwxWidgets package (http://www.omegahat.org/RwxWidgets) fit into the mix? This seems to potentially deal with some of the OS X issues. In any event, I completely agree that the gWidgets approach of creating an interface that is both "R like" and separates R from the underlying widget tool kit is the correct one.
Dan On Wed, 2007-01-08 at 12:09 +0200, Philippe Grosjean wrote: > Just my 0.02$ added to this discussion: tcl/tk could be automatically > installed under Windows (if the option is checked), and tile is readily > usable once the tcltk2 package is installed. Also, using tcltk2, you > have more Windows look&feel than with Gtk2. There are also a couple of > other advantages of tcltk on specific tasks, mainly thanks to nice > aspects in the underlying tcl language readily available. So, under > Windows, tcltk (+ tcltk2) solution is much more easily in operation on > any users computer than a solution based on RGtk2. > > For Linux, Gtk2 is certainly at home, although there is special tile > version in development to support Qt widgets, I think. > > For MacOS X neither provide the appropriate look&feel. There a special > Tcl/Tk distro installed on all MacOS X (at least on Tiger), but the > regular R distribution with the AQUA GUI cannot use it. It is possible > to compile R to use it and then, you got an excellent tcltk + tcltk2 > solution with MacOS X look&feel that is almost perfect. However, this is > something only for experienced users, while most GUIs target beginners. > > For the rest, I pretty much agree that Gtk2 is much more powerful, but I > am not sure we need all its power for 99% of the simple GUIs stuff > required on top of R. > > We should end the widgets war, and start looking at gWidgets by John > Vezani, which intend to provide an interface to GUI widgets from R > independent from a particular implementation. At the moment, there is > only an implementation of gWidgets interface for RGtk2 (and one for > Java?),... but an implementation for tcltk (/tcltk2) should not be too > difficult to do. I may work on it once I have some time, that certainly > not in the near future!!! > > Anyway, I will continue to improve tcl/tk support through tcltk2 when > time permit, and since I have now a Mac with MacOS X + Windows + Linux > installed on it, I will work on more portable code than before (I was > only working under Windows). > > Really, the effort should be targetted to make R GUIs independent from a > particular GUI widget and start coding or recoding stuff using gWidgets > and work on both RGtk2 and tcltk/tcltk2 implementations. Currently, I > should consider this, personnally: > - Linux: RGtk2 for sure, > - Windows: tcltk+tcltk2 for ease of installation and better Windows > installation, or RGtk2 if you need more features than those provided by > tcltk/tcltk2, > - MacOS X: nothing really satisfying currently. > > Best, > > Philippe > ..............................................<°}))><........ > ) ) ) ) ) > ( ( ( ( ( Prof. Philippe Grosjean > ) ) ) ) ) > ( ( ( ( ( Numerical Ecology of Aquatic Systems > ) ) ) ) ) Mons-Hainaut University, Belgium > ( ( ( ( ( > .............................................................. > > Peter Dalgaard wrote: > > Michael Lawrence wrote: > >> GTK+ has many more features than tcl/tk (tile included), though tcl/tk does > >> have some features that GTK+ lacks, like a canvas widget. > >> > >> The API of the underlying toolkits, as well as the R interfaces, are quite > >> different. I've heard many people say that they prefer the GTK+/RGtk2 > >> style, > >> though there are probably many people that feel the opposite. The tcltk > >> package is a binding to the Tcl language, while RGtk2 is a binding to a > >> collection of C libraries. > >> > > Minor quibble: tcltk (mostly) binds directly to the Tcl *engine*, > > bypassing the parsing layer, $-substitution, quoting hell, etc. The > > Tcl/Tk engine is just another collection of C libraries. The major > > difference to Gtk+ is that the Tcl/Tk engine was designed to support > > interpreted languages (mainly, of course, Tcl). > > > > Apart from that, I pretty much agree that RGtk2 could well be the > > toolkit of the future. It's main detraction at this point is that it is, > > at the tutorial level, mainly documented by demos and that it seems to > > be a bit sensitive to changes in the underlying toolkit and have a > > couple of rough edges in general. But it can certainly do amazing stuff; > > all it needs is a dedicated effort to take care of a number of little > > issues (esp. portability). That and an introductory document that covers > > the concepts involved. > > > > (It needs to be no secret that I have been approached about the > > possibility of a book on R/tcltk, and ended up resolving that there > > would certainly be a market, but of the 3 or 4 candidates to write it, > > probably none would want to. However, in due course, when the obvious > > author completes his academic obligations, a book on RGtk2 should be a > > very interesting prospect.) > > > >> RGtk2 also binds libglade, meaning that one can design a GUI graphically > >> using the Glade tool and display it using R. Glade may or may not be > >> useful, > >> depending on the application. The Rattle tool seems to have used Glade > >> effectively, but I personally prefer to construct the interfaces > >> dynamically. > >> > >> Since GTK+ is object-oriented, RGtk2 is able to support the creation of new > >> widget classes that override the functionality of their parents. This is a > >> neat feature, but is rarely necessary. > >> > >> For graphics, RGtk2 binds several useful libraries, including Cairo (vector > >> graphics) and GdkPixbuf (image manipulation). > >> > >> You might also consider the gWidgets package. It is a convenient API for > >> creating simple GUIs in R. It abstracts away the underlying toolkit. > >> Implementations exist using RGtk2 and rJava (swing). You could always start > >> using a GUI this way and then convert to RGtk2 or some other toolkit later > >> if necessary. > >> > >> I hope this helps, > >> Michael > >> > >> On 7/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Why use R tcltk/tcltk2 instead of R GTk2, or why use R GTk2 instead of R > >>> tcltk/tcltk2? > >>> Bill Morphet > >>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> R-SIG-GUI mailing list > >>> R-SIG-GUI@stat.math.ethz.ch > >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-gui > >>> > >>> > >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> R-SIG-GUI mailing list > >> R-SIG-GUI@stat.math.ethz.ch > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-gui > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > R-SIG-GUI mailing list > > R-SIG-GUI@stat.math.ethz.ch > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-gui > > > > _______________________________________________ > R-SIG-GUI mailing list > R-SIG-GUI@stat.math.ethz.ch > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-gui -- Dan Putler Sauder School of Business University of British Columbia _______________________________________________ R-SIG-GUI mailing list R-SIG-GUI@stat.math.ethz.ch https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-gui
