[GRASS-dev] Re: problem with G_fatal_error
michael.barton at asu.edu
Tue Oct 23 18:00:52 CEST 2007
On 10/23/07 8:48 AM, "Paolo Cavallini" <cavallini at faunalia.it> wrote:
> Michael Barton ha scritto:
>> I couldn't agree more about the importance of a GUI to a large and growing
>> number of GRASS users. I can't help but point out that GRASS also has its
>> own GUI-integrated approach, that includes all available modules and is
>> actively under development (mature, stable TclTk and development wxPython).
>> Because it follows a different philosophy of integrating high-level GRASS
>> module commands rather than the lower-level GRASS libraries, we don't run
>> into this kind of problem as much.
> On the other side, we must admit for the average GIS user the native
> GRASS GUIs are less smooth to use, and more surprising, when compared to
Having used both, I don't agree, though this is always a matter of opinion.
There are some features of the QGIS GUI that I very much like and others
that I find counter-intuitive. I'm sure that the same could be said of the
full GRASS GUI. In truth, no interface is really intuitive. The most
important question is how difficult is it to learn an interface given what
most people are used to.
Complicating any comparison is the fact the the native GRASS GUI includes
all GRASS modules, while QGIS is a hybrid of some specific QGIS features and
some GRASS features, making comparisons an apples vs. oranges sort of thing.
Also, while TclTk may *look* a little less 'modern' than Qt, it remains
highly functional as a GUI interface with a lot of bells and whistles. Of
course the wxPython GUI that is nearing completion *looks* more up-to-date
and seems functionally equivalent to Qt.
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
Director of Graduate Studies
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University
More information about the grass-dev