Python Portability--Not very portable?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:50:14 -0700, W. eWatson wrote:

> As an example, my inexperienced Python partner 30 miles away has gotten
> out of step somehow. I think by installing a different version of numpy
> than I use. I gave him a program we both use months ago, and he had no
> trouble. (We both use IDLE on 2.5). I made a one character change to it
> and sent him the new py file. He can't execute it. I doubt he has
> changed anything in the intervening period.

What does that mean? It crashes? It raises an exception? He double-clicks 
on it and nothing happens? What error does he get?

What was the one character change? Have you tested it and are you sure it 
works, or are you just assuming it works?

What OS are you using? How did you send it to him? Can he open the file 
in a text editor, and what does he see?


> A further example. Months ago I decided to see if I could compile a
> program to avoid such problems as above. I planned to satisfy that need,
> and see if I could distribute some simple programs to non-Python
> friends. I pretty well understand the idea,and got it working with a
> small program. It seemed like a lot of manual labor to do it.

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what you think this is going to 
accomplish. A program compiled to object code is going to be dependent on 
the hardware platform, the operating system, and any libraries that may 
or may not be installed. Most likely the *exact* version of the 
libraries. Do the words "DLL Hell" mean anything to you? How is that an 
advantage of Python's source-code distribution?



-- 
Steven