On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 4:07 PM Brendan Barnwell <brenbarn@brenbarn.net> wrote:
On 2020-11-20 20:53, Chris Angelico wrote:
So let me ask this: In what circumstances do you think producing native executables IS a bad thing, and in what circumstances do you think it ISN'T a bad thing, and why do you think including such functionality in the stdlib would encourage the former more than the latter?
It's a bad thing any time it isn't actually necessary, and it's a good
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 3:35 PM Brendan Barnwell<brenbarn@brenbarn.net> wrote: thing only when it is actually necessary. It's not my place to argue other people's use cases in specifics, but I'm just saying that the default should be to NOT bundle the interpreter, and you only reach for a native executable if that doesn't work.
Okay, but that doesn't answer the second part of my question. You were saying earlier that you wanted people to read your posts and not claim that you're saying native executables shouldn't exist. So I'm trying to bring the discussion back to the original more narrow topic, which is the pros and cons of including native executable creation in the stdlib.
Just saying "it's bad if it's not necessary" is a cop-out in this context. The question is why do you think that including such functionality in the stdlib is bad. Your response here is saying it's up to other people to decide whether to use it or not, but that doesn't explain why you think it shouldn't be in the stdlib. Everything in the stdlib can be used if people think it's necessary and not used if they don't.
The range of people who (a) cannot install from PyPI and can only use the stdlib, and (b) cannot deploy with a .pyz and must deploy an .exe, is extremely narrow. In what situation do you have to make a native executable but cannot get a tool from PyPI to make one? ChrisA