in reply to Perl/Tk doesn't look that bad

Speaking of Tcl/Tk (without perl), it is not that outdated, as long as there are quite frequent releases.
I heard they're planning to include more OS-native widgets into next Tcl/Tk release (including dorpdown boxes on Windows).

perlTk could be outdated, but there exists experimental release Tk804.024 now, and it is Unicode-aware. Not as stable as 800.024 though.

There exists an option to use Tcl::Tk modules instead and get use of most recent Tcl/Tk
See my topics at Tcl::Tk and Tcl versions 0.6 released... and Perl could do Tcl/Tk with full Unicode support... for details.

Courage, the Cowardly Dog

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Perl/Tk doesn't look that bad
by batkins (Chaplain) on Jun 17, 2003 at 17:16 UTC
    I just took a look at that and it seems kinda nice. I'd heard of it before, but always assumed that you had to feed it Tcl code to evaluate. The interface is actually fairly similar to Perl/Tk. Thanks, man!
[reply]
      I should redirect your thanks to Malcolm Beattie, the original author of module, but for some reason he is not reachable.

      Besides, to get most benefits from that module you should know some Tcl programming, but this piece of knowledge is not that much and, IMHO, not more than perlTk knowledge, and good documentation should cover this problem.

      perlTk hides widget paths from user (but hides them not completely, user still should know them if (s)he go deeply into perlTk details), as opposed to Tcl::Tk module where widget paths should be specified directly.

      Anyway, I hope soon I'll release quite stable release.

      Courage, the Cowardly Dog

[reply]
        Anyone know if Nick Ing-Simmons is working on getting the next Tk released?
[reply]

In Section Meditations