On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:14:44 PM UTC-4, Joshua Landau wrote: > > I still think you are overstating it somewhat. Have a website on which you > > distribute your software to end users (and maybe even--gasp--charge them > > for it)? *That's* a good reason. > Not really. It'd be a good reason if it disqualifies the other > options, but it doesn't. Just give them an archive.
> If you're worried about keeping your code "safe" then: That's not what I was thinking in terms of, although it's fine to note that since people on this list occasionally think just that. What I was thinking of was that if you are going to sell software, you want to make it as easy as possible, and that includes not making the potential customer have to install anything, or even agree to allow you to "explicitly" install a runtime on their computer. If the potential customer just sees, clicks, and installs, that should be the most they ought to have to do. > > Also, many programs rely on 2-3 dependencies, and sometimes that is asking > > a lot of the end user to install. (I know, I know, it shouldn't be...and > > with things like pip it really shouldn't be, but you know how it goes). > > > But why do they need to install it at all? If you're not installing > the .py file, then just include those dependencies in the archive -- > .py files are tiny. If you are installing the .py with a setup.py > (like with the link I included), then just install them at the same > time. Maybe. I'll have to think about it. I'm referring to libaries as dependencies. So for example, though .py files are small, wxPython, for example, isn't tiny, nor are other libraries one might use. > Yeah, but not for Python :P. For Python .exe files are a rarity and > should be kept that way. That there is a significant interest in creating exe files suggest that not everyone feels that way. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
