As someone who quite hates being in that situation (although I can build binaries and all that with a little grunt), I can’t quite understand why sometimes developers can’t do what’s seemingly so simple for them - build and release their code as a package.
Like, I know there are variables when building, but why can’t you just make a default package (okay, series of packages for different OSes if needed) for everyone to enjoy? Is it just some elitist mindset or no bothering about anyone but devs or are there valid reasons for such actions beyond “I don’t care”?
It’s Python. It’s source or nothing. It’s as close to universally released as it can get without a lot more effort. This is a perfect example of where non-tech savvy people put their foot in their mouth and chew.
Not quite true. There are tools that can compile a Python program to a binary. I used PyInstaller years ago to create a single-file .exe file of a Python app I designed for a non-tech savvy friend. Worked like a charm.
Remember, the person does it FOR FREE in his SPARE TIME. Any type of entitlement is absolutely toxic. No, you are not entitled for an installer. Especially with Python. The READMEs are usually 1-5 commands, anyway. People would rather rant for across several forums rather than educate themselves over 30 mins.
I wasn’t suggesting the developer is obligated to compile anything. I was simply correcting the person I was responding to because they were incorrect. They said “It’s source or nothing”, and I chimed in that there are, in fact, ways to compile Python to simple executables. Nowhere did I say the developer is required to do this for end users.
Yes, but that’s extra effort, for a single platform. In order to properly asuage the goons that whine about no installer, they’d need to compile up such a binary or installer for every OS, for each unique distro.
My point is not that it is impossible, but that to even gain much for everyone, it takes A LOT of extra work. The source code for Python, with build context included, is easier than most other options, and the people asking for more are entitled twats.
It’s not actually all that easy, depending on the project. There are a million different ways to package a program to be installable. “Just make an EXE” for example doesn’t work very well as modern Windows won’t want to let you run it; and since computers are all different you need to bundle all potential dependencies in the EXE. If that’s not feasible then you’re back to picking an installation manager.
As others have mentioned, in this case we’re talking about Python, so it’s easier for everybody to not do any of that. Using it is probably as easy as 1-install Python, 2-install dependencies (one command), 3-run the script. Making that into an EXE is possible but introduces way more complexity than is warranted.
It’s not always that simple and I also don’t want to do the testing and support that requires. I’m not gonna set up a windows vm and 5 different Linux vms and get a Mac to build and test for every platform. If you want to use my software you’re welcome to do so but unless you’re paying me I don’t see why I should provide a service that is just a pain in the ass for me. Open sourcing the code alone is already a commitment that not everyone is willing to do as that requires documentation, issue tracking, community support and much more. I build stuff that I want to use and am interested in and as a thank you to the OSS community also share that work but that does not include end user support
Its just a python script, it takes 5 minutes to watch a youtube video to learn how to install python and run the script according to the readme instructions.
Its not like the repo owner could just hit the magic compile button for an interpreted language to make it work or really needs too.
As someone who quite hates being in that situation (although I can build binaries and all that with a little grunt), I can’t quite understand why sometimes developers can’t do what’s seemingly so simple for them - build and release their code as a package.
Like, I know there are variables when building, but why can’t you just make a default package (okay, series of packages for different OSes if needed) for everyone to enjoy? Is it just some elitist mindset or no bothering about anyone but devs or are there valid reasons for such actions beyond “I don’t care”?
It’s Python. It’s source or nothing. It’s as close to universally released as it can get without a lot more effort. This is a perfect example of where non-tech savvy people put their foot in their mouth and chew.
Not quite true. There are tools that can compile a Python program to a binary. I used PyInstaller years ago to create a single-file .exe file of a Python app I designed for a non-tech savvy friend. Worked like a charm.
Remember, the person does it FOR FREE in his SPARE TIME. Any type of entitlement is absolutely toxic. No, you are not entitled for an installer. Especially with Python. The READMEs are usually 1-5 commands, anyway. People would rather rant for across several forums rather than educate themselves over 30 mins.
I wasn’t suggesting the developer is obligated to compile anything. I was simply correcting the person I was responding to because they were incorrect. They said “It’s source or nothing”, and I chimed in that there are, in fact, ways to compile Python to simple executables. Nowhere did I say the developer is required to do this for end users.
I was rather targeting the whole audience, sorry, didn’t mean to come out as rude.
Ah, no worries. It’s all good.
Yes, but that’s extra effort, for a single platform. In order to properly asuage the goons that whine about no installer, they’d need to compile up such a binary or installer for every OS, for each unique distro.
My point is not that it is impossible, but that to even gain much for everyone, it takes A LOT of extra work. The source code for Python, with build context included, is easier than most other options, and the people asking for more are entitled twats.
It’s not actually all that easy, depending on the project. There are a million different ways to package a program to be installable. “Just make an EXE” for example doesn’t work very well as modern Windows won’t want to let you run it; and since computers are all different you need to bundle all potential dependencies in the EXE. If that’s not feasible then you’re back to picking an installation manager.
As others have mentioned, in this case we’re talking about Python, so it’s easier for everybody to not do any of that. Using it is probably as easy as 1-install Python, 2-install dependencies (one command), 3-run the script. Making that into an EXE is possible but introduces way more complexity than is warranted.
It’s not always that simple and I also don’t want to do the testing and support that requires. I’m not gonna set up a windows vm and 5 different Linux vms and get a Mac to build and test for every platform. If you want to use my software you’re welcome to do so but unless you’re paying me I don’t see why I should provide a service that is just a pain in the ass for me. Open sourcing the code alone is already a commitment that not everyone is willing to do as that requires documentation, issue tracking, community support and much more. I build stuff that I want to use and am interested in and as a thank you to the OSS community also share that work but that does not include end user support
Its just a python script, it takes 5 minutes to watch a youtube video to learn how to install python and run the script according to the readme instructions.
Its not like the repo owner could just hit the magic compile button for an interpreted language to make it work or really needs too.