Improve the Windows python installer to reduce new user confusion
The Python Users list most often asked question seems to be from Windows users who run the installed multiple times because they assume that the install is the python program. Followed by I installed Python, where is it? My suggestion is that the installer wizard "Setup was successful" panel has a link to a getting started on Windows with Python page. I'd also suggest to layout the information that is key before the thank you to Mark Hammond. Suggested order: Getting started with Python on Windows Python Tutorial Python documentation What's new Special Thanks I would also suggest adding all of these as links in the Start Menu. Currently the menu is: IDLE Python Python manuals Python Module Docs Becomes: IDLE Python Getting started with Python on Windows Python documentation I'd also suggest being clear about the use of py.exe and python.exe in the getting started on windows docs. I have assumed that py.exe is the preferred command line tool to start python if that is right document it as such. With py.exe no need to mess with the PATH. Barry
I rarely use Windows, but do support them, so this sounds good to me. But one confusion: With py.exe no need to mess with the PATH.
How does py.exe get on the PATH? Now that the need for python 2 and 3 on the same machine is greatly reduced -- is it so bad to put python.exe on the PATH? Also, if order to get python top level scripts to work, there needs to be a PATH entry for that, too. I get what py.exe is about, but maybe it's a lost cause. -CHB
-- Christopher Barker, PhD Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
On 2020-04-10 20:14, Christopher Barker wrote:
py.exe goes into the Windows folder, which is on the PATH.
Now that the need for python 2 and 3 on the same machine is greatly reduced -- is it so bad to put python.exe on the PATH?
All of them? I have multiple versions installed. py.exe lets me specify which one explicitly or just leave it to the shebang line. Much neater!
On 4/10/20, MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
That's the typical setup, but a standard user that can't get OTS administrator access has to install the launcher just for the current user, in "%LocalAppData%\Programs\Python\Launcher", which the installer automatically adds to the per-user PATH.
When I upgrade from python 3.8 to 3.9 I'm likely to have both installed at the same time until I'm happy I my code working in 3.9. The PATH makes that impossible. But py.exe it is easy to use use both.
Also, if order to get python top level scripts to work, there needs to be a PATH entry for that, too.
Do you mean the #! lines? That is taken care of by py.exe and how it was installed. Managing the PATH on Windows is complex for all sorts of reasons. Being able to avoid that is a win for all users, especially new users.
I get what py.exe is about, but maybe it's a lost cause.
I love py.exe as it simplifies life on Windows. No need to care about the path or where Python is installed. Barry
On 4/11/20, Barry Scott <barry@barrys-emacs.org> wrote:
I think by "top level" Christopher means running "foo.py" directly, or just "foo" if ".PY" is in PATHEXT. The installer's option to update environment variables adds the "Scripts" directory to PATH and adds the .PY and .PYW file extensions to PATHEXT. It would be more flexible to split this out as an independent option. (Note that the "Scripts" directory also contains scripts that are embedded in a launcher executable, such as pip.exe, which distlib uses for entry-point scripts. But many entry-point scripts are commonly run via py.exe instead, such as `py -m pip`.)
I rarely use Windows, but do support them, so this sounds good to me. But one confusion: With py.exe no need to mess with the PATH.
How does py.exe get on the PATH? Now that the need for python 2 and 3 on the same machine is greatly reduced -- is it so bad to put python.exe on the PATH? Also, if order to get python top level scripts to work, there needs to be a PATH entry for that, too. I get what py.exe is about, but maybe it's a lost cause. -CHB
-- Christopher Barker, PhD Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
On 2020-04-10 20:14, Christopher Barker wrote:
py.exe goes into the Windows folder, which is on the PATH.
Now that the need for python 2 and 3 on the same machine is greatly reduced -- is it so bad to put python.exe on the PATH?
All of them? I have multiple versions installed. py.exe lets me specify which one explicitly or just leave it to the shebang line. Much neater!
On 4/10/20, MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
That's the typical setup, but a standard user that can't get OTS administrator access has to install the launcher just for the current user, in "%LocalAppData%\Programs\Python\Launcher", which the installer automatically adds to the per-user PATH.
When I upgrade from python 3.8 to 3.9 I'm likely to have both installed at the same time until I'm happy I my code working in 3.9. The PATH makes that impossible. But py.exe it is easy to use use both.
Also, if order to get python top level scripts to work, there needs to be a PATH entry for that, too.
Do you mean the #! lines? That is taken care of by py.exe and how it was installed. Managing the PATH on Windows is complex for all sorts of reasons. Being able to avoid that is a win for all users, especially new users.
I get what py.exe is about, but maybe it's a lost cause.
I love py.exe as it simplifies life on Windows. No need to care about the path or where Python is installed. Barry
On 4/11/20, Barry Scott <barry@barrys-emacs.org> wrote:
I think by "top level" Christopher means running "foo.py" directly, or just "foo" if ".PY" is in PATHEXT. The installer's option to update environment variables adds the "Scripts" directory to PATH and adds the .PY and .PYW file extensions to PATHEXT. It would be more flexible to split this out as an independent option. (Note that the "Scripts" directory also contains scripts that are embedded in a launcher executable, such as pip.exe, which distlib uses for entry-point scripts. But many entry-point scripts are commonly run via py.exe instead, such as `py -m pip`.)
participants (4)
-
Barry Scott -
Christopher Barker -
Eryk Sun -
MRAB