> I agree, most Tkx users like myself transitioned from Perl/Tk > and know > little or no Tcl.
I don't want to go into discussion what is better - tcl/tk .vs. perl/Tk, so please consider my further message as a non-biased one :) Actually Perl/Tk is nothing else but a special syntax for GUI. It seems like Perl/Tk has Perl syntax, but actually it isn't. You have special set of rules - how to create a button, how to grid/pack/place it, and what this means, etc etc etc. It has only small resemblance to Perl. Looking into a program one could be easily distinguish Perl/Tk parts, because Perl/Tk GUI is visually different from other parts of Perl program. tcl/tk has another syntax for GUI. Tkx has yet another one. The whole idea of Perl/Tk was to get rid of tcl/tk GUI syntax and invent a new one, the Perl-looking one. IMO the experiment was successfull in a sence that engine works, but OTOH it was failed, because the syntax was too much verbose and way unreadable. That's my opinion - perl programs are readable, but perl/Tk GUI isn't. So, for a newcomer it is almost the same what to learn - tcl/tk GUI or perl/Tk or Tkx. But tcl/tk is very desireable for Tk programming, so everyone should know some tcl/tk minimum in order to know what is happening. However knowing entire tcl syntax not needed, and this makes task much easier. IOW, one should get an idea of tk part of tcl/tk. No need to deal with "upvar" or other stuff, but one should know what are widgets, notion of its path, etc. Once a person will know tk, then programs will have more concise and readable GUI on pure tk, which will be fed to eval. Then use Tkx syntax or Perl/Tk (via Tcl::Tk) This is exactly how I do and I find this way powerful. > > To be honest, I didn't know that Tcl even had an eval function until > > Vadim said that he couldn't find Tkx::eval() in the docs and I starting > > looking through the source. I was surprised when I didn't find Indeed, expecting that user will have an idea about Tkx::eval after reading Tkx::*foo* means that reader knows tcl syntax well enough :) :) > > That's better than nothing, but I think this is important enough to put > > it in the main documentation. I read the tutorial when I first started > > using Tkx but never really looked at it afterward. By the time I would > > have needed eval I would have forgotten having ever read about it. I agree. Regards, Vadim.
