3 ms·
For the Windows platform, you could always get a copy of "Programming Windows" by Charles Petzold and call the Win32 API directly (not really recommended). For
by bdfh42 18y ago
For the Windows platform, you could always get a copy of "Programming Windows" by Charles Petzold and call the Win32 API directly (not really recommended). For a native Windows look I suppose that Iron Python would be optimal as it has full access to the .NET Framework.The Mono project has made that effectively portable to the other supported platforms but you would end up having to immerse yourself in the .NET world view.
Otherwise I get the impression that most other GUI kits for Python have a "look" of their own and are thus going to stand out a bit on any given platform.
I will certainly be tracking this post to see what suggestions come up - thanks for posting the question.
- cstejerean 18y agowxPython will create a native look and feel on Windows, Mac and Linux (by using the correct API for each)
- aitoehigie 18y agothanks for your response but i am also thinking along the lines of platform portability.
- bdfh42 18y agoWell the Mono project would make any Iron Python development portable to the Mac and Linux and would certainly meet your "Windows Forms" type requirement. Still, there are alternatives being suggested on this post that could meet the need by supplying just the GUI components.
- ComputerGuru 18y agoAnother vote for the IronPython + Mono/.NET. An added advantage is far faster runtimes thanks to bytecode-compilation (vs the default interpreted-code nature of Python in most circumstances). You can write your code in Visual Studio on Windows or MonoDevelop on Linux. On Windows, it'll use the native Win32 controls, on Linux Mono will "draw" controls that look like the native ones without actually calling the native binaries - it allows for a huge compatibility boost and still manages to look 99% native (technically it's drawing the exact same native controls, but the drawings aren't perfect).