Charles Hartman wrote:
> Maybe linda.s might have a more useful perspective
> at this point?
Charles, I totally agree with you about newbies and Python. However,
linda.s compiled python from source. Anyone who is compiling from source
should darn well be able to figure out how to add something to her path.
Which brings up the question: why did linda.s compile the source? I'm
going to make a guess that she didn't have a good reason, but didn't
find the binary installers right away.
What this means is that much of the problem is documentation. This has
been talked about before, and I think everyone agree that we need to
improve it, but someone needs to do it.
One other point: right now there are two "recommended" binaries for OS-X:
Bob's 2.4.1 framework build
ActiveState's 2.4.2 framework build.
However, Bob's is not the latest, and ActiveState's comes with licensing
restrictions and no readline. So there is no ideal build right now.
Bob is working on a Universal build at the moment, and it will be the
latest, so hopefully we will soon have a single binary installer that we
can recommend to newbies.
Daniel Lord wrote:
> As for Apple and Python: Apple supports Python just fine-
No, they don't. They don't keep it up to date, they are unlikely to keep
backward compatibility, and they provide no way to do GUI programmer
(not quite true, I think they provided an out-of-date version of
wxPython with Tiger). A large fraction of folks wanting to program on
the mac will want to do GUI programming. You are also very likely to
need additional packages, so that needs to be easy also.
> By installing 2.4, a user has installed a
> non-Apple-official version so the user has to take responsibility for
> setting it up properly.
I think Charles point is that the user shouldn't need to take that
responsibility, the packager could instead.
> Because 2.3 is the official Apple version, the creators of
> the 2.4 binary package did not want to overwrite 2.3 and assume the
> liability for the users system.
Actually, it's also because Apple has included some closed source stuff
in their Python. Replacing it without that WOULD break some things.
> There is an assumption that when one is using development
> tools, one knows a bit more of the technical details on using the
> operating system.
This is quite true. I think Charles is right, that Python could be a
great newbie-friendly development tool for OS-X, but that would require
fixing more than this. Really, it would be great if someone bundles up a
good python distribution with a good IDE and a good GUI library (PyObjC
or wxPython or TKinter). Add some good docs and viola! I think this
could even be commercially viable, but someone's got to do it.
In the meantime, I do think with a little work, we can make it easier.
> But don't blame Python, Apple, or
> the great group of folks here who unselfishly keep Mac Python going.
I don't think there is blaming: more like expression of frustration and
suggestions for improvement.
Charles, if you want to help, here's my suggestion:
Re-write the main pythonmac.org page, then post your version to this
list for discussion. If it is well liked, Bob has already said he'd
be glad to replace the current page.
Here are my suggestions for a how to write that page:
Welcome to Python on the Mac!
Intro-
links to other python resources, etc.
What Python should I use?
-- brief discussion of the options.
--The "Recommended Option" -- for users without special needs or
newbies that don't know what they need
----- Link to Binary Python 2.4.* installer
----- Instructions of stuff to do after installing:
-- Install TigerPython24Fix
-- Add /usr/local/bin to your PATH
-- Note: couldn't those steps be optionally done by the installer?
----- Link to Collection of packages on Pythonmac.org
----- Link to Wiki pages for people that need to use other Pythons.
Perhaps build instructions, etc.
What do I do now?
-- How to run from command line
-- IDE/editor options
-- Pointers to "learn python" resources
NOTE: I think we can recommend the same thing at this point for all
users of OS-X 10.3 and 10.4. It also looks like the new Universal build
may become the news recommended Python for OS-X 10.3.9 and above, but
it's not ready yet.
I was thinking of a decision tree, based on what version of OS-X you're
running, and what you want to do (web development, GUI programming,
etc), but I think we can, in fact have a single setup that will be best
for most people running 10.3 and greater, so we can keep it simple.
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
NOAA/OR&R/HAZMAT (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
