as a maintainer of Tcl::Tk module, I want to shed a light on your mention "Tcl::Tk is nearly identical to Tk, but somewhat faster. Why both exist is beyond my understanding though...".
In few words, because perl/Tk was implemented in unusual (read: wrong) way
To expand, usually other languages (ruby, python, etc) and other GUI libs (Gtk, QT, etc) do *not* include entire GUI lib into extension, while perl/Tk did.
This leads to a problem of harder maintenance and harder incorporations of new features.
I, personally, was stuch with lack of Unicode few years ago, and moving to Tcl::Tk was a must for me.
Also another module on CPAN makes similar job but it do not follow perl/Tk syntax.
On a different note - I was impressed on QT. Although it is not acceptable for me (due to $cost for commercial usage) I was impressed by its quality: QT on my Set-top-box, satellite receiver, based on Linux and having only 32Mb of memory, was unbeleiveable fast and lightweight and damn good... (compared to Gtk+)
| [reply] |
Yes, but you can write off QT support in Perl.
The QT 3 bindings are third-party and somewhat stale, and there's no evidence we are going to see QT 4 bindings.
Even the Perl people INSIDE of TrollTech can't QT bindings, I've spoken to them.
| [reply] |
Why's that? What's gone wrong ? That's pretty sad news...
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
Well, I've said it's a "non-exhaustive list" :)
| [reply] |