I didn’t do much with PyQt, other than adapting my wrapper for a number of PySide / QT-components,
so I can change my wxPython programs to PyQt programs with a single button click. From this
experience, I come to the following conclusions:
- PyQT is far more consistent (every component has properties with the same name, event handling is
equal for all, chaining events is very easy)
-
PyQT can easily be skinned through a CSS-like approach
-
PyQT has at least the ability to run on mobiles
-
PyQt is supported by a large team
The only drawback I could find is that creating you own components might more difficult, but I
didn’t try (why should I
-> but people will not select pyQT because of the license?
I know the document is better than wxPython.
···
2011/6/22 Stef Mientki stef.mientki@gmail.com
On 21-06-2011 20:17, Christopher Barker wrote:
C M wrote:
wxPython is intended to look “native”, which means its widgets should look like what the platform
wants widgets to look like. There are some exceptions to this, but generally it looks on Windows
like applications look on Windows; on Mac as they do on Mac; on Linux as they do on Linux. I
believe pyQT also uses native widgets, mostly.
It sure didn’t used to – it did it’s own drawing of all the widgets – then they had themes that
more-or-less matched the native ones, but Ive never seen a QT app that looks or acts native on the
Mac – they generally don’t even use the native file selector dialogs, and the like.
(pyGTK is even worse, from a native-look-and-feel-perspective, on the Mac)
The OP mentioned “skinning” – the QT approach should be better suited to skinned apps – I think
“nice” or “pretty” is meaningless, but if you goal is to have all the widgets look like what you
want, rather than like the ordinarily platform widgets, then wx is not a great choice, it simply
is not designed for that.
I can’t tell you from experience if QT is any better in that regard, but I suspect it is.
and look into PySide for a more flexible license – I don’t know how robust it is yet, but if it
meets your needs, it’s a more flexible license.
I’m a happy wxPython user, …
… but I think PyQt is better for the future,
(although I’m afraid of the influence of MS
I didn’t do much with PyQt, other than adapting my wrapper for a number of PySide / QT-components,
so I can change my wxPython programs to PyQt programs with a single button click. From this
experience, I come to the following conclusions:
- PyQT is far more consistent (every component has properties with the same name, event handling is
equal for all, chaining events is very easy)
-
PyQT can easily be skinned through a CSS-like approach
-
PyQT has at least the ability to run on mobiles
-
PyQt is supported by a large team
The only drawback I could find is that creating you own components might more difficult, but I
didn’t try (why should I
cheers,
Stef
–
To unsubscribe, send email to wxPython-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
or visit http://groups.google.com/group/wxPython-users?hl=en