python's acceptance

[Scott Hathaway]

Thanks for all the suggestions.  I have tried many of them!

I was not that pleased with SpecTCL and SpecPython, but Boa-Constructor is
cool.

I still have not correctly built a binary program with wxPython support, but
I am getting them to work with Tkinter.  Maybe there is hope for this newbie
yet!

:)

Scott



"Scott Hathaway" <slhath at flash.net> wrote in message
news:pZdQ4.7603$wb7.519676 at news.flash.net...
> This post is meant to generate thoughtful discussion, not burn me to a
> crisp, so here it goes.
>
> I am a Windows programmer who uses mostly VB (I know how bad it is...I use
> it all the time).  I love the language syntax of python!  It is clean,
easy,
> and extremely powerful.  Yet, I have two items that I believe keep Python
> from growing with Windows users:
>
> 1.  In making this transition, I have had trouble because I am not used to
> trying to layout gui's with pure code.  If python could get a gui builder
> (like vb or delphi) that was mainstream and used native controls on each
> platform, it could easily give VB or Delphi a run for their money.  I have
> recently looked at Boa Constructor that lays out wxPython code and lets
you
> build a gui!  This is awesome.  I have not used the PythonWorks program,
but
> I will try it once it is out.
>
> 2.  It is nearly impossible for a newbie like me to build an .exe on the
> Windows platform with Python.  I have tried three different methods with a
> simple wxPython program (freeze, standalone, and installer).  I cannot get
> any of them to work.  It appears that I need to tell them what files I
need
> to distribute, but I do not know that info.  Python needs an installer
that
> can scan the code and automatically add the appropriate files for people
who
> are idiots like me.
>
> Once these two things are done, I could easily scrap VB and use Python
> exclusively.  Has anyone else experienced these frustrations?  What can be
> done to solve them?  (I also realize that perhaps they have been solved
and
> I just don't know where to look).
>
> Please comment.
>
> Scott
>
>



Return-Path: <trentm at molotok.activestate.com>
Delivered-To: python-list at python.org
Received: from molotok.activestate.com (molotok.activestate.com [199.60.48.208])
	by dinsdale.python.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FD81CE6F
	for <python-list at python.org>; Tue,  9 May 2000 16:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from trentm at localhost)
	by molotok.activestate.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22442
	for python-list at python.org; Tue, 9 May 2000 13:35:34 -0700
Resent-Message-Id: <200005092035.NAA22442 at molotok.activestate.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:35:01 -0700
From: "'Trent Mick'" <trentm at activestate.com>
To: Bill Tutt <billtut at microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Python on 64 bit/IA-64 ...
Message-ID: <20000509133501.I21443 at activestate.com>
References: <4D0A23B3F74DD111ACCD00805F31D8101D8BD078 at RED-MSG-50>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us
In-Reply-To: <4D0A23B3F74DD111ACCD00805F31D8101D8BD078 at RED-MSG-50>
Resent-From: trentm at activestate.com
Resent-Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:35:34 -0700
Resent-To: python-list at python.org
Resent-Sender: trentm at molotok.activestate.com
Sender: python-list-admin at python.org
Errors-To: python-list-admin at python.org
X-BeenThere: python-list at python.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta3
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>

On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:31:21PM -0700, Bill Tutt wrote:
> On x86 alone the only consideration really is size.
> Speed isn't an issue, the FPU core always does all of its computations at
> long double percision. (80 bit)
> 
Yes, you are right. I was being, at once, cute(trying), useless(succeeding),
and pointing out portability as the main one here. I suppose the Python
opinion on this would be: "portability is job one, and double is good enough
anyway."

I have never played with it but maybe NumPy has interfaces for higher
precision floats. Don't know?

Trent

> > 
> > Other considerations: speed, size, portability. Not 
> > necessarily in order of
> > anyone's preference. Can't please everybody all of the time. :)
> > 
> > Trent
> >