On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:12:16 AM UTC-4, Joshua Landau wrote: > On <some multitude of times>, CM <cmpyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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.
> I don't really get what you are saying. Do you, or do you not, want it > installed? I'm just saying that sometimes one goes to download new software and are met with a statement such as: "Installing Eclipse is relatively easy, but does involve a few steps and software from at least two different sources. Eclipse is a Java-based application and, as such, requires a Java runtime environment (JRE) in order to run. ...Regardless of your operating system, you will need to install some Java virtual machine (JVM). You may either install a Java Runtime Environment (JRE), or a Java Development Kit (JDK), depending on what you want to do with Eclipse." This is not always the type of thing you want your customers to encounter. Can all the installation of the runtimes be done with an installer that is itself an .exe, like with PyInstaller? If so, that's probably fine. > > 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. > > Please excuse the fact I haven't done anything serious on Windows in > years so I'm not really sure what I'm saying. How does Windows deal > with dependencies? > > It's going to have to be fetched at one point anyway, so that's either > at download-time, install-time or run-time. The first lets you just > add it to the archive, the second lets you deal with it through a good > standard distribution manager thing, the third is potentially crazy. > Hence, wutz za probem bruv? I'm good with the first way, and I'm fine with Linux's package manager/whatever doing it the second. To simplify everything: sales require massive simplicity for (some) end users. You can get 1-2 clicks out of them before they drop dead as buyers. Furthermore, and I haven't mentioned this yet, an .exe file on Windows has the look of authenticity, whereas a .py file (which is a text file, really) doesn't, which might also matter to customer perceptions. This is all psychology. The ease of deployment side is up for grabs, but yes, potentially a hassle for cross platform deployment. I'm open to the idea of using an installer .exe to set up the user's computer with Python and all the libraries he needs to get going. I just haven't done that so far. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
