Python compiled?

[Jorgen Grahn]

I hope people are less hesitant to install "interpreted" applications today
than they were ten years ago.

I also believe it's better to convince the end user to install Python before
installing the application[1], rather than to try to sneak in an interpreter
with py2exe or something -- an interpreter which the end user cannot update,
manage or use for other things.

I have to confess to be very ignorant about the Windows installation options
for Python packages, but surely in principle at least, it should be possible
to make self-installing .EXE files that do what I get from

apt-get install python-mypackage

or at least

dpkg --install mypackage

That is to say, which install an interpreter if one isn't already there, and
then install the package. Or, upon finding an interpreter install into it
along the lines of distutils.

It has been a while since I used bdist_wininst, but I hope it at least

a) detects if there is a suitable Python installed
b) otherwise, suggests that the user should install one,
explains why, gives the URL of a suitable package,
and the size of the download

Things get trickier, of course, if the software depends on external packages
and modules.

/Jorgen

 

[Grant Edwards]

I also believe it's better to convince the end user to install
Python before installing the application[1], rather than to
try to sneak in an interpreter with py2exe or something -- an
interpreter which the end user cannot update, manage or use
for other things.

There's a typo in that last phrase. It should read "[...] --
an interpreter the user isn't going to uninstall or break
because he doesn't know what it is or why it's there."

I meant what I wrote, of course (and you should really have
added a smiley.)

Nah, I knew everybody would get it without one. c.l.p readers
are smarter than the average bear.

Might be because I'm more at home in Linux (Debian). The
bundling-an-interpreter approach to distribution software is
simply not applicable on those platforms, for many different
reasons.

Of course. I never ship an interpreter for Linux apps. Just
the python source. I thought we were talking about Windows
apps what with the reference to py2exe and Inno Setup and
whatnot. Linux comes with Python already installed, though
sometimes wxPyton and friends aren't installed by default.
Mostly my Linux Python apps are strictly command-line anyway.

Maybe that's why I have a hard time even understanding the
idea. I see lots of problems and few benefits.

I've had limited success telling Windows users to install
Python. Even if you point them to the ActiveState MSI file
with all the Win32 stuff already bundled, they seem to muck it
up most of the time. I can't imagine how -- it's dead simple
to install, but they manage to screw it up.

For example, the issue of security fixes. If there's a bug in
Python which makes anyone running an interpreter vulnerable,
how are those users even going to /find out/ about it?

I guess you ship them an update -- same as you would for a
security fix for the other parts of the application.

 

[Tim Roberts]

Hi all. I'm sorry for a noob question like this but I'll try to ask it
anyway.
One of the greatest problem that may discourage a new user to choose Python
language is it's interpreted nature.

I doubt it. C#, VB.NET, VBscript, Javascript and Perl have not suffered
from being interpreted.

 

[Paul Rubin]

I doubt it. C#, VB.NET, VBscript, Javascript and Perl have not suffered
from being interpreted.

Are you kidding?

 

[Terry Reedy]

I doubt it. C#, VB.NET, VBscript, Javascript and Perl have not suffered
from being interpreted.

Nor has 386 'machine language' suffered from being interpreted, at a deeper
level, by microcode.

tjr

 

[Robert Kern]

Nor has 386 'machine language' suffered from being interpreted, at a deeper
level, by microcode.

I think both you and Paul may be missing Tim's point. I don't think he's
talking about "suffering" in technical respects, like speed. He's
talking about popularity.

--
Robert Kern
(e-mail address removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

 

[Terry Reedy]

I think both you and Paul may be missing Tim's point. I don't think he's
talking about "suffering" in technical respects, like speed. He's
talking about popularity.

I knew that ;-) and meant that ;;--)).

Of course, many people don't know that 'machine code' is often now
interpreted -- nor that Python code is compiled to something by all current
implementations. Perhaps we should call the CPython 'interpreter' the
CPython interpreter-compiler that it is.

Terry J. Reedy