Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #9194 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Ivan Kljaic <ikljaic@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 15:50 -0700
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Corey Richardson <kb1pkl@aim.com> - 2011-07-10 19:03 -0400
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 16:49 -0700
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> - 2011-07-10 20:42 -0400
      Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python "bruno.desthuilliers@gmail.com" <bruno.desthuilliers@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 05:09 -0700
        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-07-11 22:39 +1000
          Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 06:44 -0700
            Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-11 16:10 +0200
              Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 07:21 -0700
                Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-11 16:38 +0200
                Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 00:39 +1000
                  Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 09:33 -0700
                    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 09:56 -0700
                      Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 04:03 +1000
                        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 11:52 -0700
                          Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 05:27 +1000
                            Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-12 12:40 +1200
                      Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Ivan Kljaic <ikljaic@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 11:28 -0700
                        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 05:16 +1000
                        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 12:03 -0700
                        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 14:48 -0500
                        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 12:58 -0700
                          Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 13:02 -0700
                          Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 13:19 -0700
                        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 12:37 -0700
                        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2011-07-11 16:35 -0400
                          Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 13:52 -0700
                            Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 11:43 -0700
                              Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 14:18 -0700
                                Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 17:22 -0700
                                  Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 07:59 -0700
                        Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-07-12 11:10 +1000
              Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Speedbird <julio@techfuel.net> - 2011-07-11 09:38 -0700
              Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-12 20:24 +1000
                Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 06:20 -0500
                Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 22:27 +1000
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> - 2011-07-10 20:43 -0400
      Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 03:47 -0700
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Anthony Papillion <papillion@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 19:51 -0500
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 03:34 -0700
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2011-07-11 09:58 -0400
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> - 2011-07-11 19:11 +0200
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python "Elias Fotinis" <efotinis@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-11 21:59 +0300
      Re: Why isn't there a good RAD Gui tool for python Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-07-11 15:21 -0400
        Re: Why isn't there a good RAD Gui tool for python Hansmeet Singh <hansmeetschool@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 20:05 -0800
    Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python Dave Cook <davecook@nowhere.net> - 2011-07-11 23:33 +0000
      Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 18:42 -0700
      Re: Wgy isn't there a good RAD Gui tool fo python sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-07-11 18:38 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#9240

On 7/10/11 6:50 PM, Ivan Kljaic wrote:
> Ok Guys. I know that most of us have been expiriencing the need for a
> nice Gui builder tool for RAD and most of us have been googling for it
> a lot of times. But seriously. Why is the not even one single RAD tool
> for Python. I mean what happened to boa constructor that it stopped
> developing. I simply do not see any reasons why there isn't anything.
> Please help me understand it. Any insights?

http://pyobjc.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9266

Ivan Kljaic, 11.07.2011 00:50:
> Ok Guys. I know that most of us have been expiriencing the need for a
> nice Gui builder tool for RAD and most of us have been googling for it
> a lot of times. But seriously. Why is the not even one single RAD tool
> for Python.

Just a quick suggestion regarding the way you posed your question. It's 
usually better to ask if anyone knows a good tool to do a specific job 
(which you would describe in your post), instead of complaining about there 
being none. Even if you googled for it, you may have missed something 
because it's known under a different name or because it works differently 
than you expected. Also, as the answers show, your usage of the term "RAD" 
is ambiguous - not everyone seems to know what you mean with it.

Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9276

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:11:56 +0300, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote:

> Just a quick suggestion regarding the way you posed your question. It's
> usually better to ask if anyone knows a good tool to do a specific job
> (which you would describe in your post), instead of complaining about there
> being none.

Opinion is divided on this… <http://bash.org/?152037>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9279 — Re: Why isn't there a good RAD Gui tool for python

On 07/11/2011 02:59 PM, Elias Fotinis wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:11:56 +0300, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Just a quick suggestion regarding the way you posed your question. It's
>> usually better to ask if anyone knows a good tool to do a specific job
>> (which you would describe in your post), instead of complaining about
>> there
>> being none.
>
> Opinion is divided on this… <http://bash.org/?152037>
>

There is another way: http://bash.org/?684045

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9303 — Re: Why isn't there a good RAD Gui tool for python

lol isnt billy mays dead

On 7/11/11, Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 02:59 PM, Elias Fotinis wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:11:56 +0300, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just a quick suggestion regarding the way you posed your question. It's
>>> usually better to ask if anyone knows a good tool to do a specific job
>>> (which you would describe in your post), instead of complaining about
>>> there
>>> being none.
>>
>> Opinion is divided on this… <http://bash.org/?152037>
>>
>
> There is another way: http://bash.org/?684045
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9295

On 2011-07-10, Ivan Kljaic <ikljaic@gmail.com> wrote:
> a lot of times. But seriously. Why is the not even one single RAD tool
> for Python. I mean what happened to boa constructor that it stopped
> developing. I simply do not see any reasons why there isn't anything.

I prefer spec-generators (almost all generate XML these days) like
QtDesigner to code-generators like Boa. I've only seen one good
argument for code generation, and that's to generate code for a layout
to "see how it's done".  But code could always be generated
automatically from a spec.

I already have an editor I like, I don't see the need to tie GUI
layout to a code editor.  If you want something with more
sophisticated Python specific features, there's PyDev.

Dave Cook

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9299

On 12 Jul, 01:33, Dave Cook <davec...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> I prefer spec-generators (almost all generate XML these days) like
> QtDesigner to code-generators like Boa. I've only seen one good
> argument for code generation, and that's to generate code for a layout
> to "see how it's done".  But code could always be generated
> automatically from a spec.

wxFormBuilder will produce C++, Python and XML. Pick the one you like!

The advantage of using XML in tools like GLADE, QtCreator, and more
recently Visual C#, is separation of layout and program logic. The
problem with code generators like Visual C++ or Delphi was the mixing
of generated and hand-written code.

However, there is no real advantage over using XML instead of C++ or
Python: C++ and Python code are also structured text. One structured
text is as good as another: "There once was a man who had a problem.
He said: 'I know, I will use XML.' Now he had two problems."

When using wxFormBuilder, the generated .cpp, .h, .py or .xrc files
are not to be edited.

To write event handlers, we inherit from the generated classes. Thus,
program view (generated code) and program control (hand-written code)
are kept in separate source files.

Because C++ and Python have multiple inheritance, we can even separate
the program control into multiple classes. What we instantate is a
class that inherit the designed dialog class (generated) and event
handler classes (hand-written).

Therefore, XML has no advantage over Python in the case of
wxFormBuilder. XML just adds a second layer of complexity we don't
need: I.e. not only must we write the same program logic, we must also
write code to manage the XML resources. Hence, we are left with two
problems instead of one.

This is not special for wxFormBuilder: In many cases when working with
Python (and to somewhat lesser extent C++), one is left to conclude
that XML serves no real purpose.

Sturla

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9300

On 12 Jul, 01:33, Dave Cook <davec...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> I prefer spec-generators (almost all generate XML these days) like
> QtDesigner to code-generators like Boa. I've only seen one good
> argument for code generation, and that's to generate code for a layout
> to "see how it's done".  But code could always be generated
> automatically from a spec.

wxFormBuilder will produce C++, Python and XML. Pick the one you like!

The advantage of using XML in tools like GLADE, QtCreator, and more
recently Visual C#, is separation of layout and program logic. The
problem with code generators like Visual C++ or Delphi was the mixing
of generated and hand-written code.

However, there is no real advantage over using XML instead of C++ or
Python: C++ and Python code are also structured text. One structured
text is as good as another: "There once was a man who had a problem.
He said: 'I know, I will use XML.' Now he had two problems."

When using wxFormBuilder, the generated .cpp, .h, .py or .xrc files
are not to be edited.

To write event handlers, we inherit from the generated classes. Thus,
program view (generated code) and program control (hand-written code)
are kept in separate source files.

Because C++ and Python have multiple inheritance, we can even separate
the program control into multiple classes. What we instantate is a
class that inherit the designed dialog class (generated) and event
handler classes (hand-written).

Therefore, XML has no advantage over Python in the case of
wxFormBuilder. XML just adds a second layer of complexity we don't
need: I.e. not only must we write the same program logic, we must also
write code to manage the XML resources. Hence, we are left with two
problems instead of one.

This is not special for wxFormBuilder: In many cases when working with
Python (and to somewhat lesser extent C++), one is left to conclude
that XML serves no real purpose.

Sturla

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web