Andrew Kuchling wrote:
Can someone articulate why Tk should be replaced?
Jim Ahlstrom replied:
I don't know whether Tk should replaced, but I can explain why I don't use it for our commercial Python application.
It is just too big and complicated. Windows comes with a built-in GUI, and I hesitate to install another scripting language (Tcl) and its libraries, and then install a big system which has frequently been out of phase with Python releases just to access the Windows GUI.
To me this all sounds like FUD. Since Python 1.6 and 2.0, you don't have to install Tcl/Tk or its libraries -- it is installed *transparently* by the Python Windows installer. That's different -- and better -- than what happened in 1.5.2, where a separate Tcl/Tk installer was optionally run. The version issues are also resolved this way: you are guaranteed to get exactly the Tcl/Tk version that was tested by the developers.
What if a user calls with a problem? Why should I have to debug their Tcl library path problems? No thanks.
The Tcl library paths are all taken care of by the new installer strategy. Really, give it a try. It Just Works! (SM) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)