Python compiled?

Jorgen Grahn jgrahn-nntq at
Thu Sep 8 22:35:01 CEST 2005

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:29:46 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante at> wrote:
> On 2005-09-06, Jorgen Grahn <jgrahn-nntq at> wrote:
>> I also believe it's better to convince the end user to install Python before
>> installing the application[1], rather than to try to sneak in an interpreter
>> with py2exe or something -- an interpreter which the end user cannot update,
>> manage or use for other things.
> There's a typo in that last phrase.  It should read "[...] --
> an interpreter the user isn't going to uninstall or break
> because he doesn't know what it is or why it's there."

I meant what I wrote, of course (and you should really have added a smiley.)

Might be because I'm more at home in Linux (Debian). The
bundling-an-interpreter approach to distribution software is simply not
applicable on those platforms, for many different reasons.

Maybe that's why I have a hard time even understanding the idea.
I see lots of problems and few benefits.

For example, the issue of security fixes. If there's a bug in Python which
makes anyone running an interpreter vulnerable, how are those users even
going to /find out/ about it?


  // Jorgen Grahn <jgrahn@       Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/      >   R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

More information about the Python-list mailing list