Making wxPython a standard module?

Torsten Bronger bronger at physik.rwth-aachen.de
Sat Jun 14 21:47:39 CEST 2008


Hallöchen!

Grant Edwards writes:

> On 2008-06-14, Diez B. Roggisch <deets at nospam.web.de> wrote:
>
>>>> And on a personal note: I find it *buttugly*.
>>> 
>>> Do you mind explaining "why" you find it *buttugly*?
>
> [...]
>
>> For the curious: Not the look & feel (albeit I prefer KDE on
>> linux over Gnome, which is a Qt/GTK thing and thus affects wx
>> look & feel as well), but the code & the designers.
>
> I've never used any of the designers, but I agree 100% that
> wxPython code is nasty ugly. wxPython has a very un-Pythonic API
> that's is, IMO, difficult to use.

I know that such requests may start a never-ending thread but I'd
really like to know what you mean with this.  I had almost no GUI
experience when I started to use wxPython, yet it was a pleasure for
me.

Really, aesthetics of the source is important to me being a hobby
programmer, and I don't like wxPython's camel case and getters and
setters.  However, even many (if not most) core Python modules don't
respect PEP8 or don't use current language features.

Besides, passing function names as strings is also a wart, and *I*
have simply never understood signal and slots.  Maybe we should
accept that there is no silver bullet in GUI toolkits, and any
personal preferences amongst the Big Four are just a matter of
taste.  This "un-Pythonic" thing is arbitrary and unfair wording in
my opinion.

Tschö,
Torsten.

-- 
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
                   Jabber ID: torsten.bronger at jabber.rwth-aachen.de



More information about the Python-list mailing list