Re^4: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl?

Please educate me about how this works. I just know that the Tk programs that I write look real nice on Windows and look like crap on Unix (although they run). Maybe this is a lot easier to do on Windows than I thought? I guess you are saying that. And that Strawberry will look equally nice on Windows? I don't know. If so, then great, glad to hear it.

Tk is Tk, and Tkx is Tkx, ActiveState doesn't do anything to improve the look.

Stop guessing and making stuff up.

Comment on Re^4: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl? by Marshall (Canon) on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:47 UTC
I still don't know what was wrong with this, but I will voluntarily strike it. Something about it tweaked some "go buttons". Sorry. I am not guessing. I know for sure that the Tk library functions using Active State appear like native Windows applications in terms of the look and feel. There are some complicated "yeah but's", but basically this is true. I have not used Strawberry Tk on Windows, but I think that I mentioned that as a caveat. From previous post re GUI: I have never used Strawberry for a serious project before so I cannot comment on how well or not well that they have done on that part. What do you think that meant? To me that means what it says...I don't know! ~~I will add that the Active State PerlApp program does have heuristics to find and force needed Tk modules into the .exe that aren't explicitly specified via "use" statements. This is not a "guess".~~	[reply]
Re^6: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl? by Anonymous Monk on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:53 UTC
I am not guessing. Yes you are. How is seeing-pleasing-graphics proof that ActiveState did anything? Like I already said, they did nothing to improve the looks of Tk.	[reply]