[ltk-user] Still active...

[Peter Herth]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Kenneth Tilton<kentilton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Absolutely. Much richer event stream and low-level access when needed.
> Greater performance, of course. And it is not clear the Togl widget can
> be effectively driven over a pipe.

Yes, I would guess that Togl might not work well over a pipe, but I
haven't tried yet...

> The larger point I would make is, why not? The pipe was a good idea to
> get going quickly, but FFI is not all that hard -- I am sure Mr. Burdick
> could do it in a few days, possibly by finding existing O/S code that
> talks to Tcl/Tk via CFFI and using that as a starting point.

There are still some reasons to keep the pipe. First of all, it means
that LTk is very portable and easy to install and I would like to keep
those properties. Second, for most cases, the pipe is "good enough"
and last, I have been using LTk-remote more and more and that cannot
use CFFI anyway.
That said, Thomas and I have discussed native bindings from time to
time, there are a few things for which we would like to have them too,
so one day we will do them. The main obstacle is bandwidth and the
fact that our current projects either not need or cannot use CFFI
bindings.

Peter