I find that really strange. The same holds for most other GUI libraries, like WxPython.
It seems the only real pythonic GUI libraries are Tkinter and PyGobject.
Those are things that make it better for the library maintainers, sure, but presenting (and documenting) an API that is idiomatic, both in structure and behavior, for the host language is better for library consumers, as it doesn't force them to context switch between the idioms of the host language and the idioms of the foreign library.
There are already examples in the "Hello Qt" which are easily solvable:
app = QApplication([])
# should read instead:
app = QApplication()
app.exec_()
# should be instead
app.exec()
These small things make the difference.
I agree on your first example.
I find PyQt to be Pythonic in all the ways that count, e.g. replacing `self.setFoo(bar)` with `self.foo = bar`, decorators for signals/slots, etc.
import logging
logger = logging.getLogger()
logger.setLevel(logging.DEBUG)
logger.addHandler(...)Generating similar high quality docs for the Pythonic wrapper should not be a issue.
Isn't the point that you don't have to translate in your head all the time. For non-Pythonic, non pep8 code you are going to do that constantly, not only when you read the Qt docs.
pep8 is a subset of 'Pythonic', the current wrappers are not only not pep8 compliant, they are also un-Pythonic in other ways.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Qt trying to expand their user base, but I would consider this effort a early milestone on the road to something that really fits into the Python ecosystem.