3 ms·

That's an awful idea. The reason to have an interpreter or any kind of separation of software into modules is that you can audit common pieces of software just

That's an awful idea. The reason to have an interpreter or any kind of separation of software into modules is that you can audit common pieces of software just once, that you don't waste space on users' computers to store it, that you don't require to build walls to protect separate environments with similar but not the same copies of the same piece of software. Another benefit of an environment like Python is that you have source code available and you can fix problems before or instead of engaging the original developers. I had a misfortune to work with the tools written by someone like you (a lot of Linux LDAP utilities are like this). It's a huge pain to deal with.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Apparently, it worked fine for dropbox for years :)
- crabbone 3y ago
  Says who?
philote 3y ago
It's really not an awful idea in general, but might be for a user like you. I'm not sure if you read the article but it details the many various types of users and why they may use Python projects and libraries. Having an executable available will make installing the tool much much easier for some users. And you can still have the source code and regular packages available for those that know how to handle it.
- crabbone 3y ago
  OP mistakes the problems Python users have with the actual problems Python packaging system has. The overwhelming majority of "pain" the author talks about is self-inflicted. The overwhelming majority of Python users are bottom-of-the-barrel worst programmers to walk the face of the Earth. Their problems come from just being really, really bad at what they are supposed to be good at. So, one complaint you could make is that Python packaging isn't very friendly to incompetent users... well, that's true, but I wouldn't care about that. Quite the contrary: I wouldn't mind it if things were more complex, but worked well, once you mastered them. Your idea of distributing a single binary is bad for all the reasons I described in the previous post. You just decided that it's not so bad because it helps users who suck to suck less... But I don't want a "solution" that would sacrifice many other desired properties to deal with my potential incompetence. I'd rather learn how to do things right than enjoy being stupid and have someone else cover for my stupidity.
dagw 3y ago
that you can audit common pieces of software just once, that you don't waste space on users' computers Python has completely given up on that idea years ago. Even when not packaging your python project into binaries, the official recommendation is that each application gets it own complete copy of all its dependencies and to never share library code between projects.
- crabbone 3y ago
  Why does it matter what Python has given up on? -- Python sucks, this is the central point of my argument. They've given up on doing the right thing? -- Is this news to anyone? This has been like that since as far back as I can remember... so, at least two decades now. In other words, who cares what "recommendation" says (recommended by who? Same Python core devs? -- why should anyone take those clowns seriously)?

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

Apparently, it worked fine for dropbox for years :)

crabbone 3y ago
Says who?

philote 3y ago

It's really not an awful idea in general, but might be for a user like you. I'm not sure if you read the article but it details the many various types of users and why they may use Python projects and libraries. Having an executable available will make installing the tool much much easier for some users. And you can still have the source code and regular packages available for those that know how to handle it.

crabbone 3y ago
OP mistakes the problems Python users have with the actual problems Python packaging system has. The overwhelming majority of "pain" the author talks about is self-inflicted. The overwhelming majority of Python users are bottom-of-the-barrel worst programmers to walk the face of the Earth. Their problems come from just being really, really bad at what they are supposed to be good at. So, one complaint you could make is that Python packaging isn't very friendly to incompetent users... well, that's true, but I wouldn't care about that. Quite the contrary: I wouldn't mind it if things were more complex, but worked well, once you mastered them. Your idea of distributing a single binary is bad for all the reasons I described in the previous post. You just decided that it's not so bad because it helps users who suck to suck less... But I don't want a "solution" that would sacrifice many other desired properties to deal with my potential incompetence. I'd rather learn how to do things right than enjoy being stupid and have someone else cover for my stupidity.

dagw 3y ago

that you can audit common pieces of software just once, that you don't waste space on users' computers Python has completely given up on that idea years ago. Even when not packaging your python project into binaries, the official recommendation is that each application gets it own complete copy of all its dependencies and to never share library code between projects.

crabbone 3y ago
Why does it matter what Python has given up on? -- Python sucks, this is the central point of my argument. They've given up on doing the right thing? -- Is this news to anyone? This has been like that since as far back as I can remember... so, at least two decades now. In other words, who cares what "recommendation" says (recommended by who? Same Python core devs? -- why should anyone take those clowns seriously)?