Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python

rusi rustompmody at gmail.com
Wed Jul 13 16:59:37 CEST 2011


On Jul 13, 5:22 am, CM <cmpyt... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:18 pm, rantingrick <rantingr... at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Kevin made the argument earlier that Tkinter (and others) are so easy
> > to use that they render needing a GUI builder useless -- and he is
> > correct! But did you know that there are GUI libraries EVEN more
> > highly abstracted than Tkinter? Oh yes! So your "OMG, this typing and
> > using my imagination is so difficult" *crap* is really making me
> > laugh.
>
> My attitude is, if I could speak in English to an AI to tell it what I'd like the
> program to do, I'd do it. Yes, since I can't do that, I inevitably
> do sometimes enjoy puzzling things out, but only because I have to.
>
> > PS: if you don't like to type, programming IS NOT the best career (or
> > hobby) choice for you.
>
> I guess it is not so much that I dislike typing, as I dislike having
> to
> switch from visual mode to code mode, remember the keywords and
> such for the widgets, rather than quickly clicking around.  The
> keystroke count is really just a proxy for that sort of effort.

Yes. This is what is called the semantic gap.

Say you were a programmer who had to write software for numerical
analysis.
Would you write it in assembly even if, say, you knew assembly very
well?
I contend that most sane programmers would choose an algebraic
language because they understand (formally or intuitively it does not
matter) that minimizing semantic gaps are best for programming.

Writing text that indirectly describes a gui rather than directly
drawing it is analogous to writing assembly that implies an algebraic
operation instead of writing the algebra directly.

As for Kevin's point:
> One reason there hasn't been much demand for a GUI builder is that, in
> many cases, it's just as simpler or simpler to code a GUI by hand.

I am not sure how to interpret that.  If you are saying that most of
today's gui builders are too close to suxware to be worth the time, I
guess its true (and eminently practical)

If on the other hand the claim is that the very idea of gui-builders
is a flawed one I think the jury is still out on that.  And the
history of computer science repeatedly shows that very high level
ideas take decades to enter the mainstream.

Think of garbage collection in 1960 in the esoteric lisp finally
getting mainlined in Java in 1995.



More information about the Python-list mailing list