On 2020-11-20 20:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
Please. Before you rehash all my arguments back at me again, READ THE THREAD. I have never said that native executables shouldn't ever exist. I have never said that zipapp is the one true way to distribute code. I have never once hinted at the notion that all users are idiots who can only ever run a .exe file, nor have I said that everyone should open source their code, or a host of other arguments that I haven't made. Please, can people stop answering arguments that haven't been made, and actually respond to what has?
Okay, let me quote a message you posted elsewhere in the thread:
Producing native executables is an attractive nuisance. It doesn't actually prevent people from disassembling your code (many MANY people seem to think that it does), it locks in a particular Python version, it locks in an OS architecture, it locks in everything that you shouldn't be locking in. Putting that sort of thing into the standard library will encourage people to use it when they really shouldn't.
These seem to me like very broad statements. Until the end of this quote, it sounds like you are arguing against native executables as a concept, not just against using the stdlib to create them. The only part where you mention the stdlib is at the end, where all you're saying is that putting this in the stdlib will encourage people to use it "where they shouldn't". In general most of your messages in the thread have given me a similar impression because you keep talking a lot about the problems with native executables in general, rather than arguing more narrowly against the inclusion of native-executable-bundling in the stdlib.
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?