C is the original language where you can reliably build an executable and ship it as a single file where it will run with no extra dependencies not already on the target system.

The C language may be complex to setup an environment. But once you have the build system complete, there are mature tools to create and distribute your artifacts. That is not the case with Python.

Python is downstream of C. Anyway you can package a C application, you can package a Python application (with some massaging).

But still, python has no mature tools for distribution? From wheels to pyinstaller to Kivy, you're just wrong.

> Anyway you can package a C application, you can package a Python application

While true, this means that packaging Python is harder than a typical C application, and requires knowledge of the C building process. That's not what people have in mind when installing Python software.

The methods you mention are exactly the reason why it is so complicated. Everyone wants to use their own method to install Python software.

There is no python distribution system that will allow me to create a binary for MacOS or Windows without running MacOS or windows, which is only one of the many problems with the existing solutions. Yes, I'm aware of the why. It just shouldn't matter to me.

That said, there's about a million packaging systems and most of them don't offer anything materially different from the others (except in weird edge cases that aren't advertised). The space is involved and annoying. It's emphatically not at all like C, which has very strong and well-documented defaults that do the things you expect (usually).