this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
1130 points (97.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
6036 readers
2526 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As someone who quite hates being in that situation (although I can build binaries and all that with a little grunt), I can't quite understand why sometimes developers can't do what's seemingly so simple for them - build and release their code as a package.
Like, I know there are variables when building, but why can't you just make a default package (okay, series of packages for different OSes if needed) for everyone to enjoy? Is it just some elitist mindset or no bothering about anyone but devs or are there valid reasons for such actions beyond "I don't care"?
It's not actually all that easy, depending on the project. There are a million different ways to package a program to be installable. "Just make an EXE" for example doesn't work very well as modern Windows won't want to let you run it; and since computers are all different you need to bundle all potential dependencies in the EXE. If that's not feasible then you're back to picking an installation manager.
As others have mentioned, in this case we're talking about Python, so it's easier for everybody to not do any of that. Using it is probably as easy as 1-install Python, 2-install dependencies (one command), 3-run the script. Making that into an EXE is possible but introduces way more complexity than is warranted.