The work in the Qt camp is simply amazing. I just wish there were more stable bindings out there for it outside of the official C++ one and PyQt (commercial or GPL, PySide 2 is not stable last I checked).
There's a promising Qt binding for Go[1] which I'm looking forwards to, but again, if I had to write an application and not want to struggle with the bindings I'm forced into the previously mentioned options.
It would be awesome to have a clean way to develop on Android with Python. Technically it is possible and has been done with Necessitas, but would be awesome if they can get it streamlined into their mobile Qt stuff.
I think the VFX industry is rallying that cause. Years ago Autodesk ported many of their 3d packages home-grown UIs to Qt (Maya and Max) I'm sure part of the goal was to reduce their maintenance burden and assist with cross-platform support. They also have Python runtimes that allow GUIs with Qt. They moved from PyQt to PySide a few years ago, too. In addition to Autodesk, The Foundry's Nuke and SideFX's Houdini are in the same camp. I've heard they're (specifically Autodesk is) funding the development and the vendors are all working together and have deadlines in place for their own annual releases.
Everyone is using Python 2.7 and have stuck with Qt 4 because Qt 5 hasn't really offered any compelling features for them. I believe the dropping of support for Qt 4 spurred them to push for Qt 5, hence PySide support for it. There are early talks about Python 3, but that's a few years off.
While I think bringing PySide back would be great, I use PyQt from day to day, and it works really well. Commercial PyQt licenses are reasonably priced, and it's dual-licensed GPL if you've got an open-source project or you just want to try something out.
That might have changed in 10 years (and the economics might differ for a small place), but when the place I was working was looking at switching from Perl/Tk for internal tools, they went with Python wxWidgets over PyQt4 because of licensing cost even though Qt would have been a better fit. They eventually went with PySide when that got released.
Meh. After trying to write real-world programs using bindings like MacRuby and PyObjC and probably others I've long forgotten, I'm convinced it's really not worth it compared to just using the blessed language of whatever platform. In Apple's case ObjC & Swift, in SDL's case C or C++, in Window's case C++ or C#. They're mostly the same for any practical purposes. All the smaller features that distinguish them are either quick & easy to learn, or just generally not worth using (I'm looking at you, Ruby's horrifying monkey-patching system!)
PyOtherSide is a very nice option if you want to (or can get by with) using QML for the UI. Since it's a "bridge" instead of bindings, there's no inherent lag or instability ascpect to it.
yeah, it's sad how hard it is to make qt bindings. this may be shallow of me but i use c++ at work all day, and i want to use something more fun to program in for my personal projects.
There's a promising Qt binding for Go[1] which I'm looking forwards to, but again, if I had to write an application and not want to struggle with the bindings I'm forced into the previously mentioned options.
[1] https://github.com/therecipe/qt