On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, CM <cmpyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:14:44 PM UTC-4, Joshua Landau wrote:
>> Yeah, but not for Python :P. For Python .exe files are a rarity and
>> should be kept that way.
>
> That there is a significant interest in creating exe files suggest that not
> everyone feels that way.
No; there can be interest in something that should be a rarity. I have
interest in turning a MUD client around backwards and having it bind
and listen instead of connecting, but I know that that should be
extremely rare. Useful, but rare.
There are a number of wrong reasons for wanting to turn Python scripts
into exe files, and a number of better reasons that place different
demands on the structure. For instance, some people aren't trying to
conceal their code, just to make a simple deployment system (as per
this thread). In that case, some form of self-extracting zip file
might be best. Others try to prevent their code from being stolen, or
tampered with. That's approximately impossible, but in any case, that
will obviously NOT be just a sfx. And then there are those who want to
compile to binary for speed (and not all of them are even correct in
what they're looking for). So there'll always be multiple solutions to
what you think is one problem ("create an exe file from a Python
application"), suggesting that it might not be one problem at all.
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
