Kenneth McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd have to agree with this. Unfortunately, the only way to use Swing
(in a
reasonable manner) from Python is to use Jython, and Jython has other
shortcomings that make me not want to use it.
What shortcomings?
--
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What surprises me is that marketing types will accept turning away -
what's the current internet user base? 200 million? - 10 million
potential customers without a complaint.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
You mean like google? Until recently, they're an outstanding example
of doing things right, and providing functionality that degrades
gracefully as the clients capabilities go down.
I'm not sure what you mean by until recently in this context.
Alex Martelli wrote:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... browser audience discussion ...]
What makes you think that the expenditure of effort is totally out of
proportion? In my experience, that isn't the case - at least if you
go into it planning on doing things that way. Retrofitting a
Claudio Grondi wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Claudio Grondi wrote:
[...]
Do I miss here something?
While you are correct in saying (I paraphrase) that HTML interfaces
nowadays can offer a rich graphical interface, it can be quite
Another possible scenario I have in mind is to control the Internet
browser
directly from a Python script using DHTML as a language for definition
of
appearance and specification of necessary data processing of in the
browser
displayed UI. This way the Internet browser and HTML with
Claudio Grondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't seen any really platform-independent software yet and I don't
expect to see any in the future.
It is simply not possible to have one, even if much progress was done lately
in many areas in order to try to approach it as close as possible.
Java
Mark Roseman wrote:
What I'm suggesting is taking the effort you'd put to the 5%, and
applying that effort instead to making the 95% even better. If that
extra effort would affect conversion rates, it's a justifiable option.
Yes, but isn't this where the 90/10 rule kicks in? In other words,
Steve Holden wrote:
[80/20 rule]
This is as much an economic decision as a marketing one, but a good engineer
knows instinctively that there is a desirable cut-off point beyond which
adding further functionality is a waste of engineering effort.
But Mike Meyer's point was that the Web
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What surprises me is that marketing types will accept turning away -
what's the current internet user base? 200 million? - 10 million
I'd have to agree with this. Unfortunately, the only way to use Swing
(in a
reasonable manner) from Python is to use Jython, and Jython has other
shortcomings that make me not want to use it.
Sigh.
Ken
On 19-Oct-05, at 9:59 AM, Ed Jensen wrote:
Claudio Grondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
[Ken]
Web interfaces are missing a lot more than this. Here are just a few
things that cannot be done with web-based interfaces (correct me
where I'm wrong):
1) A real word processor.
http://www.writely.com/
http://www.goffice.com/
2) Keybindings in a web application
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torsten Bronger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because everybody is capable of running a JS engine, even on
computers on which you don't have rights to install something.
I don't think using JS so heavily without a compelling reason is
really in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Maybe that's the key difference between the mindset of a
mathematician and that of an engineer -- I consider reaching over
95% of visitors to be _quite good indeed_,
Oh? So you'd consider an SMTP/IMAP/POP/DNS/NFS/etc server that
rejected 5% of the
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Maybe that's the key difference between the mindset of a
mathematician and that of an engineer -- I consider reaching over
95% of visitors to be _quite good indeed_,
What surprises me is that marketing types will
Mike Meyer a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Maybe that's the key difference between the mindset of a
mathematician and that of an engineer -- I consider reaching over
95% of visitors to be _quite good indeed_,
Oh? So you'd consider an SMTP/IMAP/POP/DNS/NFS/etc server
Mike Meyer a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Maybe that's the key difference between the mindset of a
mathematician and that of an engineer -- I consider reaching over
95% of visitors to be _quite good indeed_,
Oh? So you'd consider an SMTP/IMAP/POP/DNS/NFS/etc server
Paul Rubin wrote:
All this extreme use of JS misses the point, it's client side
programming all over again
This is so true, although I don't expect those people relentlessly
hyping AJAX to either realise the significance of that observation or
to necessarily make an accessible Web site for
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
What surprises me is that marketing types will accept turning away -
what's the current internet user base? 200 million? - 10 million
potential customers without a complaint. Or maybe they just don't get
told that that's what's going on.
In firms
Mark Roseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Maybe that's the key difference between the mindset of a
mathematician and that of an engineer -- I consider reaching over
95% of visitors to be _quite good indeed_,
What
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What surprises me is that marketing types will accept turning away -
what's the current internet user base? 200 million? - 10 million
potential customers without a complaint. Or maybe they just don't get
told that
You elided the paragraph where I pointed out the third alternative:
provide a better experience for the 95%, and an ok experience for the
5%. WWW technologies are designed to degrade gracefully - it's easy to
take advantage of that.
What I'm suggesting is taking the effort you'd put to the
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Claudio Grondi wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[...]
[Claudio]
I don't fully understand your attitude here. The Web Browser interface
has
all I can imagine is required for a GUI,
Claudio Grondi wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[...]
[Claudio]
I don't fully understand your attitude here. The Web Browser interface
has
all I can imagine is required for a GUI, so what is missing when you
consider, that you can generate custom images on the fly
With OS X compatibility you tend to come across with the
fact that many OS X compatible things are actually X11
things. X11 certainly looks different from Aqua (the native
interface).
But imho, Gnome _does_ look and feel quite Mac-ish in the sense that
its ergonomics has certain things in
Web interfaces are missing a lot more than this. Here are just a few things that cannot be done with web-based interfaces (correct me where I'm wrong):1) A real word processor.2) Keybindings in a web application3) Drag and drop4) Resizable windows (i.e. not the browser window) within the
On Monday 17 October 2005 12:19, Kenneth McDonald wrote:
1) A real word processor.
Difficult. Not necessarily impossible. Would require much cleverness.
And it wouldn't be capable of everything Word can do.
2) Keybindings in a web application
Not sure here, but JavaScript may be able to do
On Oct 17, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Kenneth McDonald wrote:
Web interfaces are missing a lot more than this. Here are just a
few things that cannot be done with web-based interfaces (correct
me where I'm wrong):
1) A real word processor.
2) Keybindings in a web application
3) Drag and drop
Michael Ekstrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) Keybindings in a web application
Not sure here, but JavaScript may be able to do something to accomplish
some of this. A web-delivered XUL app can definitely do this. But
that's pushing the limits of what can be considered a web application.
Hallöchen!
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Ekstrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) Keybindings in a web application
Not sure here, but JavaScript may be able to do something to
accomplish some of this. A web-delivered XUL app can definitely
do this. But that's pushing
Torsten Bronger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because everybody is capable of running a JS engine, even on
computers on which you don't have rights to install something.
I don't think using JS so heavily without a compelling reason is
really in the WWW spirit. Lots of browsers don't have JS. And
Claudio Grondi wrote:
Kenneth McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for reminding me of Gtk. OK, add that to the list.
The Web Browser interface is good for simple things, and will get better
with CSS2's adoption, but they still don't have a good way for important
Malte Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Claudio Grondi wrote:
What is that complex, that it can't be solved using an Internet Browser as a
GUI?
Nothing, but session management isn't trivial with http
interfaces. You have to deal with the back button of the browsers,
bookmarks to pages that
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Claudio Grondi wrote:
Kenneth McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for reminding me of Gtk. OK, add that to the list.
The Web Browser interface is good for simple things, and will
Grant Edwards wrote:
snip
Aside from the look feel issue with Tk, the other objection
sometimes heard is that Tk is integrated into Python by
including Tcl as well (as opposed to doing an actual Tk binding
the way some other languages have done). It's an eminently
practical approach, but
Claudio Grondi wrote:
What is that complex, that it can't be solved using an Internet Browser as a
GUI?
Nothing, but session management isn't trivial with http interfaces. You
have to deal with the back button of the browsers, bookmarks to pages
that result from posted forms, users leaving
Kenneth McDonald schrieb:
Is there any emerging consensus on the best UI for toolkit. Tk never
quite made it but from what I can see, both qt and wxWin are both doing
fairly well in general. I'm already aware of the licensing issues
surrounding qt (fwiw, I think their license fee for
Kenneth McDonald wrote:
Is there any emerging consensus on the best UI for toolkit. Tk never
quite made it but from what I can see, both qt and wxWin are both doing
fairly well in general. I'm already aware of the licensing issues
surrounding qt (fwiw, I think their license fee for
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kenneth McDonald wrote:
4) Ease of installation/use on OS X?
There are two questions which may restrict your choice
rather a lot:
#1 Should the UI look the same on each platform or should it
look the same as all other apps on the platform?
#2 Are you trying
I find wxPython to pro fill my GUI needs from python in a pretty good
way.
To show off it's capabilities - I am building a GUI editor and it
currently converts from windows forms (visual studio c# forms) to
wxPython code.
When I started programming this editor I thought I'd have major
sure it is, but since this is a Python list, you'd also need PyQt to go
along with it, and there's no version of PyQt yet compatible with Qt4.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I realy like developing PyQt applications using the Eric3 IDE. I find Qt really
has a lot of high level functionality already available for you, I like the
flexibility of the slot-signal system, I like that the Qt C++
maps very well into object-oriented Python though PyQt. You can just use the
Something to consider when writing cross-platform applications with any
gui toolkit is that it never works out of the box. Despite what they
might promise you.
If you have yourself access to a Windows, Linux and Mac OS X computer,
you probably won't have any problem to make it fully
Adriaan Renting wrote:
[which GUI toolkit?]
Kenneth McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/13/05 10:17 pm
Is there any emerging consensus on the best UI for toolkit. Tk
never quite made it but from what I can see, both qt and wxWin are
both doing fairly well in general. I'm already aware of the
Adriaan Renting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[On Qt]
I don't know how it performs on OSX, I think it works fine, as Qt is
available on OSX.
Qt on OS X is halfway there. It looks - and acts - like an aqua
application. However, to support the Command key, they hacked things
so that it is reported to
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/14/05 5:39 pm
$Adriaan Renting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$[On Qt]
$I don't know how it performs on OSX, I think it works fine, as Qt is
$available on OSX.
$
$Qt on OS X is halfway there. It looks - and acts - like an aqua
$application. However, to support
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/14/05 5:39 pm
#Adriaan Renting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#[On Qt]
#...
#[mike on qt for Mac Os X]
#...
I've looked some more into this, and it seems that the confusion is because Qt
on Mac maps:
Command/Apple key - Qt::Key_Control
Ctrl Key -
Adriaan Renting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/14/05 5:39 pm
$Adriaan Renting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$[On Qt]
$I don't know how it performs on OSX, I think it works fine, as Qt is
$available on OSX.
$
$Qt on OS X is halfway there. It looks - and acts -
Kenneth McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for reminding me of Gtk. OK, add that to the list.
The Web Browser interface is good for simple things, and will get better
with CSS2's adoption, but they still don't have a good way for important
things like
Is there any emerging consensus on the best UI for toolkit. Tk
never quite made it but from what I can see, both qt and wxWin are
both doing fairly well in general. I'm already aware of the licensing
issues surrounding qt (fwiw, I think their license fee for commercial
use is eminently
Kenneth McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Which plays best with Python? Ideally, it would already have some
higher-level python libraries to hide the grotty stuff that is almost
never needed when actually implementing apps.
2) Reliability of each?
3) Useful external libraries for
Thanks for reminding me of Gtk. OK, add that to the list.
The Web Browser interface is good for simple things, and will get better
with CSS2's adoption, but they still don't have a good way for important
things like interactive styled text, key bindings, etc. Good for
simple things
(for which I
On Thursday 13 October 2005 15:17, Kenneth McDonald wrote:
1) Which plays best with Python? Ideally, it would already have some
higher-level python libraries to hide the grotty stuff that is almost
never needed when actually implementing apps.
wxPython plays reasonably well.
I've just started
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, Tkinter not most people's favorite, because the widgets look
crude, they don't resemble the native widgets of any popular platform,
and the widget set is somewhat limited.
People should probably be more aware of work that has been going on
On 2005-10-13, Paul Rubin wrote:
The answer to each of those questions points to Tkinter. It comes
with Python by default (the least installation hassles of any
toolkit), is pretty reliable, has a reasonably Pythonic interface, and
I don't understand the question about external libraries.
This improved appearance has been a nice thing to see, but looks were never really the reason I decided to leave Tkinter. It's much more the fundamental issues of Tk, plus the fact that Tkinter was never really "completed" (not a comment on the original author--there's only so much one person can
Kenneth McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
both doing fairly well in general. I'm already aware of the licensing
issues surrounding qt (fwiw, I think their license fee for commercial
use is eminently reasonable), so aside from that, I was wondering if
[...]
Qt 4 is available as GPL
I've used wxpython and pygtk, and have a strong preference for pygtk.
wxpython has some advantages: it has better OSX support (widgets look
native, and it doesn't require the installation of the Fink x server),
and better win32 support (a few gtk widgets, such as menus, don't look
quite native on
Er, meant to say In addition GTK itself is in the top tier of free
software projects
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
However, Tkinter not most people's favorite, because the widgets look
crude, they don't resemble the native widgets of any popular platform,
and the widget set is somewhat limited.
(given that the web interface is the new black, that's not much of
an argument. tkinter with the right
60 matches
Mail list logo
