On Feb 11, 2006, at 6:12 PM, has wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
Totally off-topic, but if you'd move to setuptools you can keep
several separate packages, but users could install using
'easy_install appscript' which would then take care of the
dependencies for you.
>>>
>
Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>Totally off-topic, but if you'd move to setuptools you can keep several
>>>separate packages, but users could install using 'easy_install appscript'
>>>which would then take care of the dependencies for you.
>>
>>I think setuptools is going to be a great solution and defin
On Feb 11, 2006, at 2:31 PM, has wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>> Totally off-topic, but if you'd move to setuptools you can keep
>> several separate packages, but users could install using
>> 'easy_install appscript' which would then take care of the
>> dependencies for you.
>
> I thin
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>Totally off-topic, but if you'd move to setuptools you can keep several
>separate packages, but users could install using 'easy_install appscript'
>which would then take care of the dependencies for you.
I think setuptools is going to be a great solution and definitely p
On 9-feb-2006, at 16:34, has wrote:
As has been said elsewhere, if the aim is to market Python to a
broad audience then it's at least as much an exercise in
influencing perceptions as technical merit. And often folk just
don't like to be presented with a long list of things to download
On 9-feb-2006, at 4:13, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
The difference is that if I didn't know better, I'd get really
pissed off if I upgraded my OS and all of my very important work
stuff breaks and makes me waste a day tracking down what needs to
be fixed. That's not what an OS upgrade is supposed to
On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Charles Hartman wrote:
> I have an IDLE.app on my 10.4 machine. Since I haven't really used
> it, I can't remember if it came with Tiger, or showed up when I
> installed Python 2.4 -- does everyone with OS 10.4 have it? Is it
> just a shell to call idlelib? If so
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>Mac OS X 10.5 will surely ship with at least 2.4.2,
>
>Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what apple will do? ;-) ;-)
My bet is they start the Ascent to Transcendence any day now...
>This is a very good reason for not pointing newbies to the system python
>on pythonmac.org: un
I have an IDLE.app on my 10.4 machine. Since I haven't really used it, I can't remember if it came with Tiger, or showed up when I installed Python 2.4 -- does everyone with OS 10.4 have it? Is it just a shell to call idlelib? If so, is there any way to tell whether it calls with python or with py
On Feb 8, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Charles Hartman wrote:
>
> Well, so PythonIDE is dead. (It hasn't been well for a long time.)
>
> How ready-for-prime-time is IDLE? What drawbacks are there to
> recommending it to beginners? What can't you do? Do I remember that
> it uses TKinter? Does it make wx impo
On Feb 8, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:11 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>
> It's a bit confusing to talk as if needing new ex
Well, so PythonIDE is dead. (It hasn't been well for a long time.)
How ready-for-prime-time is IDLE? What drawbacks are there to
recommending it to beginners? What can't you do? Do I remember that
it uses TKinter? Does it make wx impossible to use? I haven't used
it, so I'm asking out of ig
Hi Bob,
On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:11 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
It's a bit confusing to talk as if needing new extensions ==
breakage. (You know you're a geek when
On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> Bob Ippolito writes:
>> You're a UNIX user, you already know what you are doing, you don't
>> count.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Wrong what? Are you saying that saying that I don't count is wrong?
That's out of context. I was replying to your statements i
Bob Ippolito writes:
> You're a UNIX user, you already know what you are doing, you don't
> count.
>
> Wrong.
Wrong what? Are you saying that saying that I don't count is wrong?
> I'd have to guess that at least 95% of user-facing Python-
> based applications on Mac OS X are going to need at
Some quick thoughts on previous posts:
Lou Pecora wrote:
> In addtion you are forgetting that we can have them install
> TextWrangler (a no-brainer) and then run scripts from there.
> Almost an IDE in some ways. I work that way from BBEdit and it's
> fine. Write script, hit 'Run.' Termi
> Extensions are installed to /
> Library/Python/2.3 or /Library/Python/2.3/site-packages, depending on
> if you're using 10.3 or 10.4.
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. I suppose that with an
Upgrade install of 10.5, that data under /Library would be preserved.
That's too bad.
Bil
On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> Christopher Barker writes:
>> When (If) he upgrades OS-X,
>> that app will break. Almost every other app he has installed on his
>> system will continue to work, but the python based one will not. This
>> would apply to any app using the built in
On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> What I don't see
>> any evidence for is them keeping 2.3.5 around as well. What that
>> means
>> is that all the packages you have compiled and installed for 2.3.*
>> will
>> no longer work.
>
> I agree. In fact, those extensions won't even
On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:11 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> It's a bit confusing to talk as if needing new extensions ==
>>> breakage. (You know you're a geek when it's second nature to write
>>> equality tests like this. ;-) I rememb
Hi Chris,
On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>> My point is: When people upgrade Python, anyway, anyhow, their
>> extensions will break. MacPython 2.4 doesn't do anything more or
>> less than Apple's Python in stopping that; it simply lets you put
Christopher Barker writes:
> When (If) he upgrades OS-X,
> that app will break. Almost every other app he has installed on his
> system will continue to work, but the python based one will not. This
> would apply to any app using the built in python and any extensions:
> simple scripts, py2app
Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> My point is: When people upgrade
> Python, anyway, anyhow, their extensions will break. MacPython 2.4
> doesn't do anything more or less than Apple's Python in stopping that;
> it simply lets you put off upgrading your Python should you want to do so.
Right. To be softer
> However, I think a consensus is building:
Yeah, among the usual suspects.
>-- define the Framework installer for 2.4 as the "standard" and most
> supported python for OS-X. (the existing build for 10.3 and the
> universal build for 10.4)
I completely disagree with this. The "standard" i
> What I don't see
> any evidence for is them keeping 2.3.5 around as well. What that means
> is that all the packages you have compiled and installed for 2.3.* will
> no longer work.
I agree. In fact, those extensions won't even be there, because they
are by default installed under /System, s
It's very simple to build Emacs from scratch for X11 on the Mac.
I follow the instructions posted by Andrew Choi at
http://members.shaw.ca/akochoi-emacs/stories/obtaining-and-building.html.
Basically, make sure you have the developer tools installed, then:
1) Install GNU texinfo:
$ cd /tmp
$
Hi Chris,
On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>> As does just explicitly upgrading your Python. I don't see why it's
>> breaking if you install Leopard, but upgrading if you install
>> MacPython
>> 2.4 from pythonmac.org. Either way, your 2.3 extensions
has wrote:
> I think what's happening in this discussion is we've got two camps
> talking past one another.
>
> One side sees the problem primarily as a marketing issue: "How can we
> attract the widest possible audience, i.e. both serious and casual
> users?"
>
> The other sees it as a purely
On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:40 PM, linc wrote:
>>
>> Full disclosure: I'm a UNIX person. The first thing
>> I do when I get a
>> new Mac is make sure X11 is installed on it, and
>> in my
>> Login Items.
>> The second thi
Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> As does just explicitly upgrading your Python. I don't see why it's
> breaking if you install Leopard, but upgrading if you install MacPython
> 2.4 from pythonmac.org. Either way, your 2.3 extensions don't work and
> you have to start from scratch. And either way, if you
On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> It's a bit confusing to talk as if needing new extensions ==
>> breakage. (You know you're a geek when it's second nature to write
>> equality tests like this. ;-) I remember Python 2.1 and I've had to
>> upgrade several times, and I n
On 8-Feb-06, at 5:00 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> has wrote:
>> - professional Unix developers who want to use Python on OS X just
>> the same as they'd use Python on any other *nix
>
> If this means non-GUI apps, then they don't need any help from us,
> except maybe one line about how python
has wrote:
> - professional Unix developers who want to use Python on OS X just
> the same as they'd use Python on any other *nix
If this means non-GUI apps, then they don't need any help from us,
except maybe one line about how python acts exactly the same from the
command line on OS-X as it do
On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:49 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>>
In addition, if you have your code running just fine and dandy
under
Apple's python, then you upgrade to 10
Hi Bob,
On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:49 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>
>>> In addition, if you have your code running just fine and dandy under
>>> Apple's python, then you upgrade to 10.5, chances are that your app
>>> will
>>> no longer work, as Apple is
On Feb 8, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>> In addition, if you have your code running just fine and dandy under
>>> Apple's python, then you upgrade to 10.5, chances are that your
>>> app will
>>> no longer work, as Apple is likely to yank their python out from
>>> under
>>> you. If
Bill Janssen wrote:
>I can see that if you are a pre-MacOSX Mac person, used to all the
>groundbreaking UI complexity of Apple in the 80's and 90's, your view
>and your needs might be different. Or if you are a for-Mac developer.
>But most people aren't.
A *very* good point.
Us longtime Mac-hea
On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 8-feb-2006, at 10:49, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> Given these caveats and limited resources, the vendor Python is
>> absolutely irrelevant as far as I am concerned. If someone wants to
>> deal with separate support and documentation for
>
> Full disclosure: I'm a UNIX person. The first thing
> I do when I get a
> new Mac is make sure X11 is installed on it, and in my
> Login Items.
> The second thing I do is build an X11 version of G
On 8-feb-2006, at 10:49, Bob Ippolito wrote:
Mac OS X 10.5 will surely ship with at least 2.4.2,
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what apple will do? ;-) ;-)
I agree that anyone that ships Python applications shouldn't rely on
Apple's python unless they have a very good reason to do so (such as
Bill Janssen wrote:
> You had no idea about it because it's not going to happen. "Apple is
> likely to yank their python out from under you"? Come on, this is
> absurd. In 10.5, /usr/bin/python is likely to be Python 2.4 instead
> of 2.3, but the odds are to 1 that it will be there, and the
Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> It's important to note, though, that you're looking at a use case of
> someone who's already familiar with databases, MySQL, etc. and knows
> exactly what they want to use Python to do.
The only point was that they knew what they wanted to do, and it
involved external pa
See my earlier message, subject "New Page, first proposal", for a
possible organization of the page that builds on Chris Barker's
suggestons (and others). The "beginner's list" thread is (just) an
offshoot of one question posed there.
Charles
On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Louis Pecora wrote
> > In addition, if you have your code running just fine and dandy under
> > Apple's python, then you upgrade to 10.5, chances are that your app will
> > no longer work, as Apple is likely to yank their python out from under
> > you. If it were running with a user-installed Python, chances are i
Bill Janssen wrote:
> I think a "jargon list" is a great idea!
>
> Bill
> ___
>
Absolutely. I read a thread that had so much about Eggs and Cheese Shop
that I thought I was reading my shopping list. I'm still not quite sure
what these are even tho
> Unless you're a unix person, there's very few useful things you can
> do with Python 2.3 sans third party extensions
Ah, I think I'm beginning to understand all the confusion.
MacOS X is the largest-selling UNIX distro in the world. Linux and
Solaris people are deserting in droves and moving
Charles Hartman wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Louis Pecora wrote:
>
>
> I'd like to get some feedback on the organization I proposed before I
> start trying to flesh anything out. The better the organization before
> I start, the less confusing (not to mention time-consuming) the work
On Feb 8, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Louis Pecora wrote:
>
> I agree with the 2 teams approach and hope I can add something to the
> non-pro/scientific user end. I would encourage Charles H. to get the
> new web page up sooner than later. That's not demanding he work and I
> watch, but I think that se
I think a "jargon list" is a great idea!
Bill
___
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
has wrote:
> So there's two options to this whole "let's market Mac Python" thing. Either
> go for the "my way or the highway" approach, which'll largely look after
> itself but cater to only a subset of the possible market and let Ruby take
> the rest. OR agree to work alongside one another as
Christopher Barker wrote:
>This is my point. You couldn't actually get anything done without downloading
>and installing _something_. Once you're doing that, it would have made very
>little difference if you had downloaded and installed a new version of Python
>as well.
I think what's happenin
> Chris Porter wrote:
> > And here, Mac comes with Python! Very nice.
> > That shouldn't be downplayed. All I needed was the Python that was already
> > installed, plus a couple added things. (I needed Python to talk to MySQL,
> > and
> > that I had to install MySQL, so there was likely no native
I'm watching these responses & collecting views. (Obviously I'm also
watching for comments on my "New Page, first proposal" outlline.)
I'll propose changes to the page organization when things settle out
a little more.
Charles
Charles Hartman
Professor of English, Poet in Residence
Connec
On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>> In addition, if you have your code running just fine and dandy under
>> Apple's python, then you upgrade to 10.5, chances are that your app
>> will
>> no longer work, as Apple is likely to yank their python out from
>> under
>> you.
>
> What
Hi Chris,
On Feb 7, 2006, at 11:07 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Chris Porter wrote:
>> And here, Mac comes with Python! Very nice.
>> That shouldn't be downplayed. All I needed was the Python that was
>> already
>> installed, plus a couple added things. (I needed Python to talk to
>> MySQL
On Feb 7, 2006, at 11:07 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Chris Porter wrote:
>> And here, Mac comes with Python! Very nice.
>> That shouldn't be downplayed. All I needed was the Python that was
>> already
>> installed, plus a couple added things. (I needed Python to talk to
>> MySQL, and
>> t
Chris Porter wrote:
> And here, Mac comes with Python! Very nice.
> That shouldn't be downplayed. All I needed was the Python that was already
> installed, plus a couple added things. (I needed Python to talk to MySQL, and
> that I had to install MySQL, so there was likely no native ability to do
I'm afraid this criticism is spot on. I got a python program from a programmer.
I want to run it on my Mac. And here, Mac comes with Python! Very nice.
That shouldn't be downplayed. All I needed was the Python that was already
installed, plus a couple added things. (I needed Python to talk to MySQ
Bill Janssen wrote:
>I think this is a wonderful example of the mindset that's wrong with
>the current situation. An afternoon's work?
> >>> print "Hello, World!"
Bill nails it. Charles has done some good work here (first draft is always the
hardest); now let's kick the tar out of it so it'll
Charles, I love the fact that you've taken the time to think through
this! Hurrah!
However...
> Somebody who comes idly to the idea of programming in Python, and
> finds the pythonmac page, will be happy if the result is an
> afternoon's work that ends in a "hello world," possibly in a windo
On 2/6/06, Charles Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. downloading & installing wxPython
> 5. downloading & installing [fill in name of IDE]
Can I politely suggest PyObjC? In my opinion, unless you need a
cross-platform GUI, you're much better off starting and staying with
PyObjC.
This is a little separate from my previous message, though it speaks
to question #2 in that message.
Somebody who comes idly to the idea of programming in Python, and
finds the pythonmac page, will be happy if the result is an
afternoon's work that ends in a "hello world," possibly in a wind
62 matches
Mail list logo
