is there really no good gui builder

Discussion in 'Python' started by azrael, Nov 8, 2008.

  1. azrael

    azrael Guest

    whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
    that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
    during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
    project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
    tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
    descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
    in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
    descent.
    I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
    python than in VB.
     
    azrael, Nov 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. azrael

    Stef Mientki Guest

    azrael wrote:
    > whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
    > that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
    > during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
    > project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
    > tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
    > descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
    > in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
    > descent.
    > I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
    > python than in VB.
    >

    Well I come from even a better GUI designer than VB,
    so I can feel a little like you,
    but at the moment I'm quite satisfied with wxPython.
    Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence.
    For wxPython there are a number of tools,
    but I got none of them working.
    I found XRC too difficult and so I made,
    and now I'm almost as satisfied as where I came from ;-)
    Here an description
    http://mientki.ruhosting.nl/data_www/pylab_works/pw_gui_support.html
    and you can find the source here
    http://pylab-works.googlecode.com/files/Data_Python_Test_V1_5.zip

    btw, why don't you stick to VB ?

    cheers,
    Stef

    > --
    > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
    >
     
    Stef Mientki, Nov 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. azrael

    sturlamolden Guest

    On 8 Nov, 20:35, azrael <> wrote:

    > I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
    > python than in VB.


    I find wxFormBuilder nice to work with. wxPython can use XRC-files
    from wxFormBuilder.

    Note that wx uses sizers (layout managers). While it makes GUIs a bit
    slower to design, it makes it easier to deal with resizing of windows
    and different screen resolutions.

    If you use PyGTK there is GLADE; with PyQt there is QtDesigner.

    http://sturlamolden.blogspot.com/2008/03/howto-using-wxformbuilder-with-wxpython.html
     
    sturlamolden, Nov 9, 2008
    #3
  4. azrael

    Peter Decker Guest

    On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM, azrael <> wrote:
    > whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
    > that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
    > during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
    > project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
    > tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
    > descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
    > in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
    > descent.
    > I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
    > python than in VB.


    You should really check out Dabo: http://dabodev.com.

    They have a great GUI designer that works interactively, and even
    allows you to create database-aware applications without having to
    know a ton about SQL. It's a very active and vibrant community, and
    the authors are amazingly responsive.

    --

    # p.d.
     
    Peter Decker, Nov 9, 2008
    #4
  5. azrael

    Mr.SpOOn Guest

    On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki <> wrote:
    > Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence.



    What's the problem with qt licence?
     
    Mr.SpOOn, Nov 9, 2008
    #5
  6. azrael

    Stef Mientki Guest

    Mr.SpOOn wrote:
    > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki <> wrote:
    >
    >> Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence.
    >>

    >
    >
    > What's the problem with qt licence?
    >

    I can't change a commercial application into an open application and
    vice-versa.
    (And therefor I also have to maintain 2 versions)
    cheers,
    Stef
    > --
    > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
    >
     
    Stef Mientki, Nov 9, 2008
    #6
  7. On 9 Nov 2008 10:46:53 GMT, Duncan Booth <>
    wrote:
    > Mr.SpOOn wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence.

    >>
    >>
    >> What's the problem with qt licence?

    >
    > "You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from one
    > of its authorized resellers before you start developing commercial
    > software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of
    > code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a commercial
    > product."
    >
    > In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial software
    > with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all you want is
    > to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are also
    > permanently locked out from including any previously developed Qt code
    > which the wider community may have produced.
    >
    > With other GPL licensed software you have the option of approaching
    > the original author and negotiating with them for their code to be
    > relicensed for use within your proprietary product (or the author
    > could simply distribute their code under a less restrictive
    > license to begin with), but the Qt license restricts you from using
    > anything publicly available *except for Qt itself*.
    >
    > It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to
    > impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them.


    PyQt has the same restrictions, and while the above is strictly correct, in
    reality common sense would break out.

    Obviously you can't predict the future and it's perfectly reasonable for
    somebody with a successful open source project to want to make some money
    from it at a later date. That's what happened with PyQt itself. Anybody in
    that situation just has to have an adult conversation to come to a mutually
    beneficial agreement.

    On the other hand if you used the GPL versions for the 2 year development
    of your application with the intention of buying the commercial versions at
    the last minute, then that is taking the piss and is what the restrictions
    are really about.

    Phil
     
    Phil Thompson, Nov 9, 2008
    #7
  8. * azrael (Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:35:03 -0800 (PST))
    > whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
    > that there is the best way to use WX.


    Don't ask. Think for yourself. wxPython is in my humble opinion the most
    popular but only the second best choice.

    > I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still
    > not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as
    > maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it
    > comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa
    > constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me
    > that there is at least something descent.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_integrated_development_environments
    _for_Python#Python

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GUI_builders

    Does that help?

    Thorsten
     
    Thorsten Kampe, Nov 9, 2008
    #8
  9. azrael

    Lie Guest

    On Nov 9, 2:35 am, azrael <> wrote:
    > whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
    > that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
    > during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
    > project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
    > tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
    > descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
    > in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
    > descent.
    > I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
    > python than in VB.


    alternatively, if you have the resources and time to do it, you could
    create the GUI part of the program in whatever tool is easiest in your
    platform of choice and have the underlying code in python. If your
    program is widely used and have a permissive license, someone _might_
    make a GUI for your portable CLI program.
     
    Lie, Nov 9, 2008
    #9
  10. azrael

    David Boddie Guest

    On Sunday 09 November 2008 13:45, Ben Finney wrote:

    > Duncan Booth <> writes:
    >
    >> Mr.SpOOn wrote:
    >> > What's the problem with qt licence?

    >>
    >> "You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from
    >> one of its authorized resellers before you start developing
    >> commercial software. The Commercial license does not allow the
    >> incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt
    >> into a commercial product."

    >
    > This text is at <URL:http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing>,
    > for those following along at home.
    >
    > The above statement is confusing and misleading. There is nothing
    > about the GPL that prevents commercial software; in fact, selling
    > software to support development is positively encouraged.


    I agree that it's misleading, but it doesn't say anything about the GPL
    preventing commercial software. It's easy to read something into it that
    isn't there, though you could argue that it's implied somehow. Ideally,
    it would say, "You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software
    or from one of its authorized resellers before you start developing closed
    source software for distribution."

    [...]

    > What that page says could be correct if, instead of falsely claiming
    > that *commercial* software requires a separate license, it rather said
    > that if you want to redistribute Qt with *restrictions* on the
    > recipient additional to those in the GPL, you cannot use the GPL as
    > the license. They offer a separate license (the confusingly-named
    > ?commercial license?) that permits some additional restrictions on
    > the recipient of your software.


    Probably. That page has been a source of controversy for some time.

    [...]

    >> It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every
    >> right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to
    >> avoid them.

    >
    > No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
    > entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
    > additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
    > redistributed at all.


    If we're talking about the second sentence, it's not an interpretation of
    the GPL. It is a restriction of the commercial license.

    > In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
    > their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
    > readers to make such a false interpretation.


    Agreed. The compromise in the terms used (commercial vs. proprietary or
    closed source) is designed to encourage adoption of commercial licenses
    rather than explain the situation, perhaps because there's the fear that
    some developers won't pay attention to anything less than a strongly-worded
    warning.

    David
     
    David Boddie, Nov 9, 2008
    #10
  11. On 9 Nov 2008 14:40:22 GMT, Duncan Booth <>
    wrote:
    > Ben Finney wrote:
    >
    >>> It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every
    >>> right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to
    >>> avoid them.

    >>
    >> No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
    >> entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
    >> additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
    >> redistributed at all.

    >
    > Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
    > are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
    > for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
    > Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
    > conditions they like for their own license.


    This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either
    v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate "Qt
    Open Source License".

    > The GPL doesn't actually say you cannot redistribute work which adds
    > additional restrictions. It says "If the Program as you
    > received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
    > governed by this License along with a term that is a further
    > restriction, you may remove that term."
    >
    >> In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
    >> their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
    >> readers to make such a false interpretation.

    >
    > It looks very much to me as though they are trying to make
    > that interpretation, it is repeated in a variety of forms across the
    > website. But it doesn't really matter whether they can make it stick or
    > not, I simply choose to avoid worrying about the issue by choosing
    > another platform where possible. (Which is a shame really as the small
    > amount of playing I did with Qt indicates it to be a very nice
    > platform.)
    >
    > The license itself says:


    ....you mean the webpage, the license is the standard GPL with all that that
    implies...

    > "This means that you cannot use a Qt Open Source Edition if your
    > software must be built with any modules that impose conditions on you
    > that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not
    > limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements,
    > copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure
    > agreement (NDA). In these circumstances you must use a commercial
    > edition of Qt."
    >
    > That I guess taken literally that means you cannot use Qt Open Source
    > Edition if your software uses Qt Open Source Edition.


    The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
    license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
    commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
    development phase.

    Phil
     
    Phil Thompson, Nov 9, 2008
    #11
  12. azrael

    Kevin Walzer Guest

    Phil Thompson wrote:

    >
    > The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
    > license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
    > commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
    > development phase.
    >
    >


    Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

    A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
    software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
    product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
    GPL..

    This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
    all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
    modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
    without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
    paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
    PyQt) and use the open-source version.

    --
    Kevin Walzer
    Code by Kevin
    http://www.codebykevin.com
     
    Kevin Walzer, Nov 9, 2008
    #12
  13. azrael

    Kevin Walzer Guest

    Phil Thompson wrote:

    >
    > The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
    > license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
    > commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
    > development phase.
    >
    >


    Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

    A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
    software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
    product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
    GPL..

    This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
    all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
    modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
    without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
    paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
    PyQt) and use the open-source version.

    --
    Kevin Walzer
    Code by Kevin
    http://www.codebykevin.com
     
    Kevin Walzer, Nov 9, 2008
    #13
  14. On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:15:42 -0500, Kevin Walzer <>
    wrote:
    > Phil Thompson wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
    >> license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
    >> commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
    >> development phase.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:
    >
    > A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
    > software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
    > product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
    > GPL..
    >
    > This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
    > all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
    > modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
    > without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
    > paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
    > PyQt) and use the open-source version.


    If the above is a correct interpretation of the GPL, then yes.

    Phil
     
    Phil Thompson, Nov 9, 2008
    #14
  15. azrael

    Terry Reedy Guest

    Ben Finney wrote:
    > Duncan Booth <> writes:


    >> In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial
    >> software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all
    >> you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are
    >> also permanently locked out from including any previously developed
    >> Qt code which the wider community may have produced.

    >
    > That is a common misconception,


    It looks to me like the plain reading of the Trolltech license. I think
    one would be foolish to act on the belief that it does not mean what it
    seems to mean. Trolltech must know how people interpret it and has had
    years to change it. Since they have not, I presume it says what they mean.

    > which is not made any better by
    > misleading text like that found at the above page, and misleading
    > dichotomies like GPL versus “commercial licenseâ€. A careful reader
    > of the GPL will see that there is explicitly *no* restriction placed
    > on redistributing the work commercially: any fee may be charged.


    The operative license for QT is the QT license, not the GPL.
    They want people even thinking about going commercial to buy a
    commercial license from the beginning. I am sure that in their
    judgment, this gains more that it loses. And I would not be surprised
    if they are right.
     
    Terry Reedy, Nov 9, 2008
    #15
  16. azrael

    azrael Guest

    It would be rally great if wingIDE would have integrated controls for
    wxPython.This would be really great.
     
    azrael, Nov 9, 2008
    #16
  17. azrael

    David Boddie Guest

    On Sunday 09 November 2008 20:08, Duncan Booth wrote:

    > So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
    > misleading?


    It depends on whether you assume that there's a separate license by that
    name. In practice, it's a placeholder for the licenses it's available under:

    "The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open
    Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3
    (?GPL?). The Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary,
    commercial development."
    -- http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing

    However, quickly skimming that page, I can see how you could reach the
    following conclusion:

    > It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
    > carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
    > other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
    > GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
    > at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.


    No, the Qt Open Source Edition is GPL version 2 or version 3 (your choice)
    with exceptions (additional permissions) that let you link things to it that
    you couldn't if it was pure GPL. It it was GPL + restrictions, it wouldn't
    be GPL compatible (you can't add restrictions to the GPL, as I understand
    it).

    More information can be found here:

    http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/gpl.html

    David
     
    David Boddie, Nov 9, 2008
    #17
  18. On 9 Nov 2008 19:08:35 GMT, Duncan Booth <>
    wrote:
    > Phil Thompson wrote:
    >
    >>> Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
    >>> are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
    >>> for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
    >>> Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
    >>> conditions they like for their own license.

    >>
    >> This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under
    >> either
    >> v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate
    >> "Qt
    >> Open Source License".

    >
    > So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
    > misleading? It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
    > carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
    > other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
    > GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
    > at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.
    >
    > Feel free to disagree, I am not an intellectual property lowyer.


    Download the source, read the text of the license, it's the GPL.

    Phil
     
    Phil Thompson, Nov 9, 2008
    #18
  19. On Nov 8, 1:35 pm, azrael <> wrote:
    > whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
    > that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
    > during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
    > project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
    > tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
    > descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
    > in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
    > descent.
    > I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
    > python than in VB.


    I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to
    create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have
    the "best" of both worlds.

    I don't use IronPython that much, but I do like that. For the most
    part though, I just use wxPython.

    Mike
     
    Mike Driscoll, Nov 10, 2008
    #19
  20. Mike Driscoll wrote:
    > On Nov 8, 1:35�pm, azrael <> wrote:
    >> whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
    >> that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
    >> during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
    >> project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
    >> tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
    >> descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
    >> in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
    >> descent.
    >> I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
    >> python than in VB.

    >
    > I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to
    > create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have
    > the "best" of both worlds.


    Yes, but you would probably need the
    version of Visual Studio (2003,
    I believe) which is used for Python.

    Is there any chance that Python could
    use the freely available of
    Visual Studio?

    >
    > I don't use IronPython that much, but I do like that. For the most
    > part though, I just use wxPython.
    >
    > Mike
     
    Colin J. Williams, Nov 10, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. azrael
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    525
    J Kenneth King
    Feb 13, 2009
  2. Chris Angelico
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    242
    Wolfgang Keller
    Jun 14, 2012
  3. Dietmar Schwertberger
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    326
  4. Dietmar Schwertberger
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    376
  5. Les Cargill
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    343
    Les Cargill
    Jun 29, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page