Not to mention, on Windows too.
Re:From Python to Lua: Why We Switched
by mixmastamyk on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @04:42PM
(#10976342)
PyInstaller, Py2exe.
Re:From Python to Lua: Why We Switched
by monkmartinez on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @08:27PM
(#10977596)
Those are not good options, seriously lacking in one form or another. Don't take my word for it: https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2015/09/software-you-can-use...
Re:From Python to Lua: Why We Switched
by mixmastamyk on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @08:44PM
(#10977657)
I've used py2exe extensively and was happy with it. I also used it with python 2.x despite the article's assertion.
You can also zip an app (think .jar) since 2.6, with the zippap module available in 3.5.
Nuitka?
No system installation is required with Lua. It can be built into your app.
Neither is it required with PyInstaller/Py2exe.
Re:From Python to Lua: Why We Switched
by monkmartinez on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @08:29PM
(#10977605)
As of last year, these options were not very good either... perhaps the situation has changed? The reality is distribution for Python apps is not good.
https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2015/09/software-you-can-use...
Re:From Python to Lua: Why We Switched
by vetinari on Wednesday January 27, 2016 @08:04AM
(#10979781)
In cca 2005 timeframe we used to ship py2exe-d windows desktop application (using wxwidgets framework), with exactly zero issues. The target was a wide range of windows releases, from 95(!) to XP.
I haven't seen any of problems mentioned in the blog post.
Re:From Python to Lua: Why We Switched
by mixmastamyk on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @08:58PM
(#10977712)
That article's dismissal of py2exe is false.
Re:From Python to Lua: Why We Switched
by BuckRogers on Wednesday January 27, 2016 @12:49AM
(#10978471)
This is really meant for monkmartinez, but you're right.
I'd like to add, that blog can be dismissed outright. It's also out of date in regards to PyInstaller. It does support Python3 now. 2.7;3.3-3.5. I've used PyInstaller for years and prefer it over the other packaging solutions, it's really good.
I wouldn't be digging up old blogs as a source for dirt and relying on any information within without verifying it was or still is true.
I don't think they could have created a statically-linked Python binary that contained the entire Python installation and core libraries, and the entire application in less than 5 MB. The entire app in a self-contained executable. No futzing with PYTHONPATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, virtualenv, installation, conflicting with the system-installed Python, etc. That's what Lua let them do.
But don't take it from me. Here is Guido van Rossum last year:
> The final question was about what he hates in Python. "Anything to do with package distribution", he answered immediately. There are problems with version skew and dependencies that just make for an "endless mess". He dreads it when a colleague comes to him with a "simple Python question". Half the time it is some kind of import path problem and there is no easy solution to offer.
https://lwn.net/Articles/651967/