Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Nov 8, 1:35 pm, azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have the best of both worlds. I don't use IronPython that much, but I do like that. For the most part though, I just use wxPython. Mike -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
Mike Driscoll wrote: On Nov 8, 1:35�pm, azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have the best of both worlds. Yes, but you would probably need the version of Visual Studio (2003, I believe) which is used for Python. Is there any chance that Python could use the freely available of Visual Studio? I don't use IronPython that much, but I do like that. For the most part though, I just use wxPython. Mike -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Nov 10, 10:27 am, Colin J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Driscoll wrote: On Nov 8, 1:35 pm, azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have the best of both worlds. Yes, but you would probably need the version of Visual Studio (2003, I believe) which is used for Python. Is there any chance that Python could use the freely available of Visual Studio? I think IronPython will theoretically work with any of the .NET versions of Visual Studio, but I would definitely recommend 2003 or 2008, although 2002 would probably work...IronPython is based on C# instead of C/C++ after all. I was reading the Early Access edition of IronPython in Action and it says you can use the free Visual Studio Express editions. You just have to pick which language you want. Mike I don't use IronPython that much, but I do like that. For the most part though, I just use wxPython. Mike -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence. What's the problem with qt licence? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
Mr.SpOOn wrote: On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence. What's the problem with qt licence? You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from one of its authorized resellers before you start developing commercial software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a commercial product. In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are also permanently locked out from including any previously developed Qt code which the wider community may have produced. With other GPL licensed software you have the option of approaching the original author and negotiating with them for their code to be relicensed for use within your proprietary product (or the author could simply distribute their code under a less restrictive license to begin with), but the Qt license restricts you from using anything publicly available *except for Qt itself*. It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mr.SpOOn wrote: What's the problem with qt licence? You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from one of its authorized resellers before you start developing commercial software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a commercial product. This text is at URL:http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing, for those following along at home. The above statement is confusing and misleading. There is nothing about the GPL that prevents commercial software; in fact, selling software to support development is positively encouraged. The GPL itself explicitly says this. GPL version 2: “You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.” GPL version 3: “You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.” What that page says could be correct if, instead of falsely claiming that *commercial* software requires a separate license, it rather said that if you want to redistribute Qt with *restrictions* on the recipient additional to those in the GPL, you cannot use the GPL as the license. They offer a separate license (the confusingly-named “commercial license”) that permits some additional restrictions on the recipient of your software. In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are also permanently locked out from including any previously developed Qt code which the wider community may have produced. That is a common misconception, which is not made any better by misleading text like that found at the above page, and misleading dichotomies like GPL versus “commercial license”. A careful reader of the GPL will see that there is explicitly *no* restriction placed on redistributing the work commercially: any fee may be charged. With other GPL licensed software you have the option of approaching the original author and negotiating with them for their code to be relicensed for use within your proprietary product This option remains with Qt also, of course, Anyone is free to attempt such negotiations. It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them. No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be redistributed at all. In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages readers to make such a false interpretation. -- \ “I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I | `\ am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I | _o__) meant.” —Robert J. McCloskey | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On 9 Nov 2008 10:46:53 GMT, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr.SpOOn wrote: On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence. What's the problem with qt licence? You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from one of its authorized resellers before you start developing commercial software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a commercial product. In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are also permanently locked out from including any previously developed Qt code which the wider community may have produced. With other GPL licensed software you have the option of approaching the original author and negotiating with them for their code to be relicensed for use within your proprietary product (or the author could simply distribute their code under a less restrictive license to begin with), but the Qt license restricts you from using anything publicly available *except for Qt itself*. It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them. PyQt has the same restrictions, and while the above is strictly correct, in reality common sense would break out. Obviously you can't predict the future and it's perfectly reasonable for somebody with a successful open source project to want to make some money from it at a later date. That's what happened with PyQt itself. Anybody in that situation just has to have an adult conversation to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. On the other hand if you used the GPL versions for the 2 year development of your application with the intention of buying the commercial versions at the last minute, then that is taking the piss and is what the restrictions are really about. Phil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
* azrael (Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:35:03 -0800 (PST)) whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. Don't ask. Think for yourself. wxPython is in my humble opinion the most popular but only the second best choice. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_integrated_development_environments _for_Python#Python http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GUI_builders Does that help? Thorsten -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
Mr.SpOOn wrote: On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence. What's the problem with qt licence? I can't change a commercial application into an open application and vice-versa. (And therefor I also have to maintain 2 versions) cheers, Stef -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Nov 9, 2:35 am, azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. alternatively, if you have the resources and time to do it, you could create the GUI part of the program in whatever tool is easiest in your platform of choice and have the underlying code in python. If your program is widely used and have a permissive license, someone _might_ make a GUI for your portable CLI program. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On 2008-11-09, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr.SpOOn wrote: On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence. What's the problem with qt licence? I can't change a commercial application into an open application and vice-versa. (And therefor I also have to maintain 2 versions) What makes you think commercial and open are mutually exclusive? You can use the GPL version for commercial software. The GPL expressly allows that. -- Grant -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
Ben Finney wrote: It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them. No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be redistributed at all. Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it for development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3. I believe they can make whatever conditions they like for their own license. The GPL doesn't actually say you cannot redistribute work which adds additional restrictions. It says If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages readers to make such a false interpretation. It looks very much to me as though they are trying to make that interpretation, it is repeated in a variety of forms across the website. But it doesn't really matter whether they can make it stick or not, I simply choose to avoid worrying about the issue by choosing another platform where possible. (Which is a shame really as the small amount of playing I did with Qt indicates it to be a very nice platform.) The license itself says: This means that you cannot use a Qt Open Source Edition if your software must be built with any modules that impose conditions on you that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements, copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure agreement (NDA). In these circumstances you must use a commercial edition of Qt. That I guess taken literally that means you cannot use Qt Open Source Edition if your software uses Qt Open Source Edition. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Sunday 09 November 2008 13:45, Ben Finney wrote: Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mr.SpOOn wrote: What's the problem with qt licence? You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from one of its authorized resellers before you start developing commercial software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a commercial product. This text is at URL:http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing, for those following along at home. The above statement is confusing and misleading. There is nothing about the GPL that prevents commercial software; in fact, selling software to support development is positively encouraged. I agree that it's misleading, but it doesn't say anything about the GPL preventing commercial software. It's easy to read something into it that isn't there, though you could argue that it's implied somehow. Ideally, it would say, You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from one of its authorized resellers before you start developing closed source software for distribution. [...] What that page says could be correct if, instead of falsely claiming that *commercial* software requires a separate license, it rather said that if you want to redistribute Qt with *restrictions* on the recipient additional to those in the GPL, you cannot use the GPL as the license. They offer a separate license (the confusingly-named ?commercial license?) that permits some additional restrictions on the recipient of your software. Probably. That page has been a source of controversy for some time. [...] It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them. No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be redistributed at all. If we're talking about the second sentence, it's not an interpretation of the GPL. It is a restriction of the commercial license. In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages readers to make such a false interpretation. Agreed. The compromise in the terms used (commercial vs. proprietary or closed source) is designed to encourage adoption of commercial licenses rather than explain the situation, perhaps because there's the fear that some developers won't pay attention to anything less than a strongly-worded warning. David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On 9 Nov 2008 14:40:22 GMT, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Finney wrote: It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them. No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be redistributed at all. Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it for development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3. I believe they can make whatever conditions they like for their own license. This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate Qt Open Source License. The GPL doesn't actually say you cannot redistribute work which adds additional restrictions. It says If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages readers to make such a false interpretation. It looks very much to me as though they are trying to make that interpretation, it is repeated in a variety of forms across the website. But it doesn't really matter whether they can make it stick or not, I simply choose to avoid worrying about the issue by choosing another platform where possible. (Which is a shame really as the small amount of playing I did with Qt indicates it to be a very nice platform.) The license itself says: ...you mean the webpage, the license is the standard GPL with all that that implies... This means that you cannot use a Qt Open Source Edition if your software must be built with any modules that impose conditions on you that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements, copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure agreement (NDA). In these circumstances you must use a commercial edition of Qt. That I guess taken literally that means you cannot use Qt Open Source Edition if your software uses Qt Open Source Edition. The only additional restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial* license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their development phase. Phil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
Phil Thompson wrote: The only additional restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial* license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their development phase. Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct: A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the GPL.. This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is PyQt) and use the open-source version. -- Kevin Walzer Code by Kevin http://www.codebykevin.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:15:42 -0500, Kevin Walzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phil Thompson wrote: The only additional restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial* license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their development phase. Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct: A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the GPL.. This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is PyQt) and use the open-source version. If the above is a correct interpretation of the GPL, then yes. Phil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
Phil Thompson wrote: Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it for development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3. I believe they can make whatever conditions they like for their own license. This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate Qt Open Source License. So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website misleading? It seems to me that the claims on the website are very carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions. Feel free to disagree, I am not an intellectual property lowyer. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
It would be rally great if wingIDE would have integrated controls for wxPython.This would be really great. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Sunday 09 November 2008 20:08, Duncan Booth wrote: So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website misleading? It depends on whether you assume that there's a separate license by that name. In practice, it's a placeholder for the licenses it's available under: The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3 (?GPL?). The Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary, commercial development. -- http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing However, quickly skimming that page, I can see how you could reach the following conclusion: It seems to me that the claims on the website are very carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions. No, the Qt Open Source Edition is GPL version 2 or version 3 (your choice) with exceptions (additional permissions) that let you link things to it that you couldn't if it was pure GPL. It it was GPL + restrictions, it wouldn't be GPL compatible (you can't add restrictions to the GPL, as I understand it). More information can be found here: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/gpl.html David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On 9 Nov 2008 19:08:35 GMT, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phil Thompson wrote: Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it for development of Open Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3. I believe they can make whatever conditions they like for their own license. This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate Qt Open Source License. So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website misleading? It seems to me that the claims on the website are very carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions. Feel free to disagree, I am not an intellectual property lowyer. Download the source, read the text of the license, it's the GPL. Phil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
Ben Finney wrote: Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are also permanently locked out from including any previously developed Qt code which the wider community may have produced. That is a common misconception, It looks to me like the plain reading of the Trolltech license. I think one would be foolish to act on the belief that it does not mean what it seems to mean. Trolltech must know how people interpret it and has had years to change it. Since they have not, I presume it says what they mean. which is not made any better by misleading text like that found at the above page, and misleading dichotomies like GPL versus “commercial license”. A careful reader of the GPL will see that there is explicitly *no* restriction placed on redistributing the work commercially: any fee may be charged. The operative license for QT is the QT license, not the GPL. They want people even thinking about going commercial to buy a commercial license from the beginning. I am sure that in their judgment, this gains more that it loses. And I would not be surprised if they are right. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
I'ma huge fan of qt and pyqt. http://trolltech.com/products -Zac On Nov 8, 2008 11:35am, azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
azrael wrote: whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. Well I come from even a better GUI designer than VB, so I can feel a little like you, but at the moment I'm quite satisfied with wxPython. Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence. For wxPython there are a number of tools, but I got none of them working. I found XRC too difficult and so I made, and now I'm almost as satisfied as where I came from ;-) Here an description http://mientki.ruhosting.nl/data_www/pylab_works/pw_gui_support.html and you can find the source here http://pylab-works.googlecode.com/files/Data_Python_Test_V1_5.zip btw, why don't you stick to VB ? cheers, Stef -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Nov 8, 6:29 pm, Stef Mientki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: azrael wrote: whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. Well I come from even a better GUI designer than VB, so I can feel a little like you, but at the moment I'm quite satisfied with wxPython. Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence. For wxPython there are a number of tools, but I got none of them working. I found XRC too difficult and so I made, and now I'm almost as satisfied as where I came from ;-) Here an description http://mientki.ruhosting.nl/data_www/pylab_works/pw_gui_support.html and you can find the source here http://pylab-works.googlecode.com/files/Data_Python_Test_V1_5.zip btw, why don't you stick to VB ? cheers, Stef -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list Personally, I love Glade, and PyGTK. It sorta sucks to deploy on windows though. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On 8 Nov, 20:35, azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. I find wxFormBuilder nice to work with. wxPython can use XRC-files from wxFormBuilder. Note that wx uses sizers (layout managers). While it makes GUIs a bit slower to design, it makes it easier to deal with resizing of windows and different screen resolutions. If you use PyGTK there is GLADE; with PyQt there is QtDesigner. http://sturlamolden.blogspot.com/2008/03/howto-using-wxformbuilder-with-wxpython.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: is there really no good gui builder
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM, azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something descent. I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in python than in VB. You should really check out Dabo: http://dabodev.com. They have a great GUI designer that works interactively, and even allows you to create database-aware applications without having to know a ton about SQL. It's a very active and vibrant community, and the authors are amazingly responsive. -- # p.d. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
