Python libraries (was * separated values)

[Cliff Wells]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:48:47 +0000 (UTC)
Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:

> In article <mailman.1011304709.3610.python-list at python.org>, Cliff Wells
wrote:
> >On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:46:55 -0600
> >Skip Montanaro wrote:
> [...]
> >> Cliff,
> >> 
> >> You obviously need to hang out on help at python.org for awhile. ;-) 
> >
> >Is this some sort of euphemism?  Sort of like "You need more training"
> >really means "You don't know what the **** you're doing"? ;-)
> 
> I would think the meaning was: "You really ought to hear how
> problematic this seems to be for the newbies", not that you were a
> newbie ;)

I know: I was being thilly ;P

> >Believe me, I'm unhappily aware of the level of knowledge of the common
> >Windows user.  Still, aren't these people aspiring programmers? 
Shouldn't
> >they have just a /bit/ more tenacity?  Sigh...
> 
> Why would they be programmers? My main interest in having standard
> things included in the standard libraries is that the end-user will
> only need two things: (1) A Python installation, and (2) My code.

Absolutely.  This wasn't brought up earlier so it's a valid point. 
However, I would still like to point out that having a "kitchen-sink"
download also solves this problem.

> Of course, I could bundle all the necessary stuff in my code; that is
> probably more reasonable than having the user search for some usable
> CSV module etc.

If I am distributing an app for general consumption, I would probably
include a Python distro with it (if it were on CD, for instance) or if I
were distributing online, I would include links to needed libraries.  If
you're distributing from a website, your users will probably need to
download Python anyway, so giving them a link to the "kitchen-sink" Python
distro would be no more difficult than it would be for them right at this
moment.
 
> However, I'm *not* talking about programmers here. I think writing
> programs for relatively naïve end-users is one of the more problematic
> areas of Python programming at the moment. Using some installer (which
> will end up putting a full interpreter and lots of other stuff in each
> and every program) is one alternative; I think the two-step approach
> of getting the interpreter and getting the program is more acceptable
> in general.

See above.

> [...]
> >Then again, there could still be a single, full-blown, kitchen-sink
archive
> >for those who don't care and just want everything (myself included).
> 
> Yes. I wouldn't mind having one "thick" and one "thin"
> Python-distribution. I mean, why would I care if someone wanted a
> distribution with minimal functionality? Good for them. I just want to
> be able to say to my users, "download the standard (fat) Python
> distribution, and the program will work".

Then we agree?
 
> > My
> >feeling is that, at this moment, it is very difficult to create a
> >mini-distribution (because of all the interdependencies),
> 
> It has been done several times, for (among other things) embedded
> devices etc.

Done several times is the problem.  Why not do it once and be done with it?

> > whereas it would
> >be trivial to build a kitchen-sink distribution from the separate
> >libraries.  Clearly it would require a lot of work up front to separate
the
> >current library into components, but it would be worth it in the long
run.
> 
> Maybe. I definitely think making another (bigger) distribution would
> be useful (as the batteries included PEP outlines).

Which is, of course, what I suggested.

-- 
Cliff Wells
Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 x308
(800) 735-0555 x308