[PyQt] Dilemma: Pqt or wxpython

[V. Armando Sole]

Well, if you are concerned by the one-man-show issue, then you should
go with PyQt because you should easily be able to write code that works 
with both, PyQt and PySide.

My main concern is about graphics. I have to find a replacement for 
PyQwt (not any longer maintained and only available for PyQt).

Armando


On 11.09.2012 15:05, Gour wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:14:13 -0400
> Doug Bell <dougb at bellz.org> wrote:
>
> Hopefully, you don't mind jumping into this (old) thread...
>
>> Several years ago I wrote the same simple application in both
>> toolkits. After that, it became obvious that PyQt was the way to go.
>> The wx toolkit was not very friendly to use, reminding me way too
>> much of the bad old days with Microsoft's MFC.  PyQt is really
>> cross-platform: something written and debugged on Linux is very
>> nearly guaranteed to work well on Windows, and vice-versa.  On
>> wxPython, there was no shortage of platform-specific bugs.
>
> I'm in the same boat today...abandoned idea to wait & use some 
> working
> GUI library in D language and decided to learn & use python.
>
> Personally, I use gtk-based desktop (Xfce) and I like it, but would
> like to write general-purpose desktop open-source application capable
> to run on Linux, Mac & Windows.
>
> I cannot speak about wx's API (un)friendliness and/or 
> platform-specific
> bugs, but my main concern is that wxWidgets project does not have 
> many
> active developers...
>
> Of course, PyQt is, afaik, mostly one-man show, similar to wxpython 
> and
> tireless work from Robin Dunn, but, otoh, Qt has much bigger
> development community.
>
> What do you think about my concern in regards to this dilemma and/or
> some other relevant point to decide properly[1] ?
>
> Let me add that I also plan to use Cython (for speed purposes of
> project's back-end functionality), as well as to use Python3.
>
> [1] my project will be done in my spare time, so I'd like to avoid
>   learning and coding in the 'wrong' toolkit which is not properly
>   developed/maintained.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Gour