Re: Future of Perl/Tk?

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 08:44:03AM +0100, Konovalov, Vadim Vladimirovich (Vadim)** CTR ** wrote:
> > As much as I hate to ask, but has there been any discussion 
> > on what will 
> > happen with Perl/Tk now? It has been a long time since there 
> > was a new 
> > release, and there are quite a few bug reports in rt, and the various 
> > Perl forums. Perhaps the source could be moved to sourceforge or a 
> > similar repository to encourage community involvement.
> 
> I very agree with moving to central repository, with several committers.
> Mailed patches to one person tend to lose.
> 
> Unfortunately "perltk" is created on SF by Bill Atkins, who is not responsible right now.i
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Meanwhile, and probably by no coincidence, there has been an 
> > explosion 
> > of growth with the various alternatives including not one, but two 
> > possible ways of bridging to Tcl/Tk, which seem to produce decent 
> 
> IMO bridging to Tcl/Tk is the best, and perl/Tk will win with including Tcl interpreter.a
If ppl do not know this then it will lose IMO. This needs to be spelled 
out so that users get excited and implement it. Benefits, why use it 
over others? When is it better to use than the other ways? 
> 
> Anyway central repository for perl/Tk is a must.
Yes, with mirrors. This way it is redundant.  
> 
> > results, but neither particularly interest me. Or rather, Wx, 
> > Prima, Qt, 
> > and GTk all interest me more.
> 
> What a tendency is - when speaking of Tk people often speculate "Gtk is even better"?
> 
> Gtk is impossible on WinCE, and, in my taste, isn't look-n-feeling good, although have better l8n 
Then the why 4 how come needs to be simply obvious to users for PERL/Tk.

Best Regards,
[email protected]

--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
ptk mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ptk