Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <48efc27f-7dc7-4980-a00a-74f42670c683@fv14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
References: <ff97bd97-5b6b-4044-9d4f-b0827d699e0d@fr19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <97dc7iF9eiU1@mid.individual.net> <78624344-9696-42c9-9ed8-9454c55c1d9f@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <97ga0jFq2lU1@mid.individual.net> <4e131ef7$0$29977$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <4e133509$0$12858$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <999dd05c-cae5-4c86-8ee7-6e1d6116d2ed@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <mailman.665.1309908056.1164.python-list@python.org> <8e2cfeb0-ddbd-4cb5-ac88-91cc53394ac6@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> <mailman.668.1309910052.1164.python-list@python.org> <48efc27f-7dc7-4980-a00a-74f42670c683@fv14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:34:08 +1000
Subject: Re: Implicit initialization is EVIL!
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
To: python-list@python.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.669.1309912450.1164.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 45
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:8880

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:15 AM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 6:54=A0pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To do what for me? Close windows? Reclaim memory? Terminate
>> applications? I don't understand your bogglement.
>
> ClaimA: I made claim that Tkinter's window hierarchy is not only
> normal, but justified in modern GUI programming.
>
> ClaimB: You made a claim ( or supported a rebuttal claim) that Mac's
> system of window management was superior and did not need such a
> "window hierarchy" simply because;

I never said "better". I just said that it's possible to create an
application that *to the user* has no main window, even though *to the
system* it does. And I'm also pointing out that in most good toolkits,
there's no "main window", but instead a "main thread".

> 1. You can create a program that twiddles it's thumbs (using very
> little memory) until a message is received.
> 2. Upon receiving a message the program can open a GUI window.
> 3. When the user closes the GUI window (definition of "close" is not
> nailed down yet!) the program will free the GUI memory and start
> twiddling it's thumbs again until the next message arrives.
> 4. rinse and repeat until you are happy.

Again, pointing out that it's possible, not that it's good. (Most
messenger programs will have a means of *sending* messages too, which
makes a good basis for a main window.) It's not efficient to keep
loading up GUI libraries and discarding them again. But it's possible,
and it would mean that you genuinely have multiple equal main windows.

> It's obvious that yours and my claims are contradicting. So with that
> said, at what point does Tkinter or Windows fail in this example you
> provide? Because, i can recreate the exact same functionality on a
> windows box without need of the underlying window manager's help.

Actually, everything you do requires the underlying window manager,
otherwise you're just painting your own pixels on the screen. And I
never said that this model was possible in some and not others.
(Although it's a bit harder with Windows; there's no explicit call to
finalize windowing, so most likely the application will hold GUI
memory until termination.)

ChrisA