In article <0G6900C8DCEARR / mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>,
Kevin Smith  <sent / qualitycode.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>- GTK parameters are all "normal" instead of the 
>confusing hashes and blocks used by Perl/Tk. 
>Also, Tk wants parameters as strings, like 'end', 
>which I didn't like.
I'm a bit lost on these remarks.  My
impression is that Perl/Tk observes
good Perl style, as most of its users
prefer.  Ruby/Tk needn't repeat its
choices of parameter bindings.

What do you prefer to "end"?  A type
other than string, or a different
value, or ...?
>- GTK packing seems much more straightforward.
Geometry management has long been one
of Tk's acknowledged strengths.  What's
a specific example of a GTK+ superiority
in this regard?
			.
			.
			.
>- Widget selection. GTK has trees, multi-column 
>listbox with header, tab control, balloon help, 
>and just about anything else you would want.
In principle, Tk is in the middle of
the most significant widget upgrade
since the mid-90s.  At best, though,
that'll leave Tk only somewhat be-
hind GTK+ in its standard widget 
library.

One point I do want to emphasize
about Tk:  through all its history,
those responsible for Tk maintenance
have had little to do with bindings
other than the C and Tcl ones.  This
has changed recently; circumstances
now are *much* more favorable for
TkLua, Perl/Tk, Ruby/Tk, Tkinter,
... people to contribute ideas and
code and have them received respect-
fully.
			.
			.
			.
Thanks, by the way, for your observa-
tions regarding GTK+ and Tk.  I hope
both have long, healthy lives.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird / NeoSoft.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html