Python 2.4 killing commercial Windows Python development ?

[Terry Reedy]

"Michael Kearns" <michael.kearns at REMOVEsaaconsultants.com> wrote in message 
news:425b8948$0$38045$bed64819 at news.gradwell.net...
>I understand this, and it's obviously a solution. Unfortunately it defeats 
>the whole point of me 'freezing' my code in the first place.

>The main feature (for me) of the way I could use this, was to create a 
>simple Java launcher that didn't require the user to install anything 
>extra, or end up with a whole stack of unused data on their machine.

I guess I don't understand some people's determination to not have users 
install fully useable Python on their Windows machines.  Doing so seems no 
different to me than having to install (or upgrade) Shockwave, or Apple's 
Quicksomething for Windows (not used so much anymore), or RealPlayer, or 
the lastest upgrade for DirectX, or DivX, or a zip decoder, or any other 
3rd party software, to run .xxx files or specialized .exe programs.  (And I 
left out the most direct analogy of a java system.)

In other words, it seems to me that most Windows users should be familiar 
with the idea of having to install a player or platform to run something 
built on top of that player or platform.  Bundling a private Python 
interpreter with every Python script is much like bundling a private 
Shockwave player with every Schockwave script.  I think most people would 
prefer having one copy of each.

To put it another way, needing a Python interpreter to run .py files is no 
different from, for instance, needing a movie player to run .mpg files, and 
all Windows users are or need to become familiar with that general concept.

Also, I think it a bit 'anti-social' to hide usage of Python.  If all 
Python Windows programs ran with a normal, communally installed Python, 
then users would gradually get the idea that having Python installed is 
much like having Shockwave and other utility platforms installed, and that 
is is part of a 'fully loaded' Windows system to have a .py player 
installed.

If there is something about the default install of Python on Windows that 
makes it less desireable or less easy than other platforms, then maybe that 
can be fixed.  To make installation easier, maybe someone could write a 
small .exe that could be frozen with scripts or run with installers and 
that would detect the presence/absence of the needed Python version and 
offer an auto download and install if needed.

At least one thing in Python's favor is the lack of having to 'register' 
before downloading (or after installation) and the ability to redistribute 
the installer free and without special license.

Terry J. Reedy