On 10/10/2013 04:54 AM, Łukasz Mach wrote:
W dniu 10.10.2013 03:43, Steve Waterbury pisze:
I'd have no expectation that after 'pip install' it would be usable as a
regular platform Python library though.
No, that would make absolutely no sense at all.
I cannot agree with your anti-pip-install-ism :).
I'm not anti-it, I just don't see any advantage it gives.
Using pyjs in a directory has always worked for me,
no installation necessary.
In what you quoted above, what I was saying was that
using pyjs as a regular Python library would make no
sense at all, not that developing a pip install capability
makes no sense at all -- it makes some sense, just not much
ROI that I can see ... although I admit it would
have psychological attractiveness, which shouldn't be
underrated. ;)
It should be fairly easy to avoid conflicting with core libraries and
pyjs core libraries.
setup.py can have some trigger which won't allow to install if not in
virtualenv.
Also, some part of pyjs/pyjamas library can be used by native python
code. Eg. in pyjd, when is fixed, or in new style of desktop pyjamas
(that one which uses qt/wxgtk...)
I don't understand this idea -- there are way more mature and
powerful python desktop gui technologies that use wx/qt,
such as pyface / enaml. I don't see how pyjd or any new style of
desktop pyjamas could possibly offer any benefits over those ...
if anything, it would make sense to work on adding to pyjs a
capability for translating code from *them* into javascript ...
Also, I think pyjd is a distraction from the unique strength of
pyjs: using Python to generate javascript for web applications.
IMO, if pyjs simply focuses on that alone, it will be an
excellent library.
Steve
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pyjs.org Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pyjs-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
