David Lyon wrote: > Being the purist that I am I still long for the day when I > can see a python package in my file manager with a proper > icon. Icons only cost $400 to get done professionally at > a graphic artist. That's roughly the same as a round of > drinks at a python conference.
If a non-programmer* end user can easily tell that the applications they're using are written in Python as opposed to (say) C++ or C# or Java then we're doing something wrong. It's our job as language developers to provide the tools that application developers need to write applications and package developers need to write packages. Packaging those applications correctly for the myriad of potential target platforms isn't really our problem. Having a standard way to provide the metadata that the packaging applications need, on the other hand, is beneficial to have as part of the standard library, since it makes it easier for an application developer to describe their metadata once and then feed it to the appropriate tools to create platform specific installers, but dragging those installer creation tools themselves into the standard library is a bad idea. Cheers, Nick. *(Programmers can often pick up on toolkit and language idiosyncrasies that let them hazard a pretty good guess as to the main languages used in an application) -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
