wefullpac

At the moment I'm doing most of my stuff on a Mac, but I've been considering also getting a Windows laptop. One of the reasons is that I've found it very difficult to get certain Python related things running on the Mac; for example, if one wants to use the most up-to-date Python on the mac, rather than the one installed by Apple, things can get a bit hairy, and then if one wants to go PyQT/wxPy/etc, it can get even worse with trying to get all the compiling/linking to work. On the other hand, it seems like most of this stuff is just available as installers for PCs. Am I being naive to think that installation of most of this stuff (including getting it working) will be much easier in the PC world? And on a somewhat related note, do people find ipython to be a decent replacement on Windows for the fact that the Windows shell is braindead? On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:50:47 -0600, Kenneth McDonald wrote. I've found it very difficult to get certain Python related things running on the Mac.

1. Ann: Activepython 2.4.1 For Mac Download
2. Ann: Activepython 2.4.1 For Mac Pc

If one wants to go PyQT/wxPy/etc, it can get even worse with trying to get all the compiling/linking to work. Have you tried fink ? On the other hand, it seems like most of this stuff is just available as installers for PCs.

Am I being naive to think that installation of most of this stuff (including getting it working) will be much easier in the PC world? It can be like falling off a log in the Linux world. Regards, Dan - Dan Sommers. Kenneth McDonald writes: At the moment I'm doing most of my stuff on a Mac, but I've been considering also getting a Windows laptop.

One of the reasons is that I've found it very difficult to get certain Python related things running on the Mac; for example, if one wants to use the most up-to-date Python on the mac, rather than the one installed by Apple, things can get a bit hairy, and then if one wants to go PyQT/wxPy/etc, it can get even worse with trying to get all the compiling/linking to work. Have you considered using the Unix/X distribution of Python?

OS X is ok as a Unix system, and comes with a not unreasonable X server. I tend to install things from darwin ports, but you might prefer fink (or even emerge, though I've pretty much given up on it). Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. Kenneth McDonald wrote: At the moment I'm doing most of my stuff on a Mac, but I've been considering also getting a Windows laptop.

One of the reasons is that I've found it very difficult to get certain Python related things running on the Mac; for example, if one wants to use the most up-to-date Python on the mac, rather than the one installed by Apple, things can get a bit hairy, Such as, downloading and doubleclicking on the package it contains? I don't see how it could get any less hairy than that. And then if one wants to go PyQT/wxPy/etc, it can get even worse with trying to get all the compiling/linking to work. I assume that's because the pre-built versions of these various packages are built for Python 2.3.5 (the version Apple bundles with MacOSX) rather than for ActivePython.

But one run of 'python setup.py install', while perhaps 'worse' than doubleclicking on a pkg within a dmg, is still not really 'hairy'. On the other hand, it seems like most of this stuff is just available as installers for PCs. Am I being naive to think that installation of most of this stuff (including getting it working) will be much easier in the PC world? PyQt for Windows is not available under GPL (as it is for Mac). If shelling out 250 pounds (plus VAT) is 'much easier' for you than doing a little compilation, or you can't use the GPL version anyway, etc, etc, then, maybe. Me, I'd rather stick to the Mac.!-) Alex.

BartlebyScrivener wrote: I'm curious about this part of the post. Any fluent Pythoners actually happy using Windows XP and, if so, do they use ipython as a kind of bash shell substitute? Other alternatives to compensate for the widely derided command line in windows?

The widely derided command line in Windows is largely widely derided by people who are used to a different command line and wish windows matched the one they were used to. I have moved between a number of different 'shells' in my programming career, and Windows 'cmd.exe' is not at all the worst (though I had to do a lot of 'help' command to learn how to use it). The tough part on Windows (for the Linux/Unix/.ix bigots) is that each program scans the command line that invoked it in its own inimitable way. This is not really the fault of the windows command line processor; this comes from allowing flexibility to individual programs.

The Windows model is big programs that do everything; the.ix model is small independent processes that connect in interesting ways. I like the latter, but there is something to be said for the former.Scott David Daniels. Scott David Daniels writes: BartlebyScrivener wrote: The tough part on Windows (for the Linux/Unix/.ix bigots) is that each program scans the command line that invoked it in its own inimitable way. This is not really the fault of the windows command line processor; this comes from allowing flexibility to individual programs. If you mean what I think you mean, I'd say it's the fault of Windows.

I don't do much Windows, and no Windows-specific development, so maybe this has been fixed since I last checkd on it. I consider Unix shells to be less than good as command line processors. Yes, they have lots of really spiffy features, but most of them just aren't very bright when it comes to being a command line processor.

Zsh is the only exception I know about, but that requires someone familiar with both zsh and the command in question to teach zsh about each individual command in a language that looks like line noise in places, and adds a level of indirection to all your commands. And that's for the easy cases. A good command processor provides an API so that commands can tell the command processor about their arguments, allowing the command processor to do completion on flags or command words, to complete arguments and do pattern matching against the appropriate universe, instead of just against file names, and so on. Windows seems to have APIs for nearly everything. Is there one like I described above? Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Kenneth McDonald wrote: At the moment I'm doing most of my stuff on a Mac, but I've been considering also getting a Windows laptop. One of the reasons is that I've found it very difficult to get certain Python related things running on the Mac; for example, if one wants to use the most up-to-date Python on the mac, rather than the one installed by Apple, things can get a bit hairy, and then if one wants to go PyQT/wxPy/etc, it can get even worse with trying to get all the compiling/linking to work. I'm really, really puzzled by this statement.

How is building Python 2.4.2 and extensions on OS X 'difficult'? Updating to the latest Python took me an hour, and most of that was doing other things while the build ran in the background.

A bit more work than using Bob Ippolito's installer of 2.4.1, but hey. WxPython has a binary installer for Python 2.4.x on OS X. You don't even need to reinstall it if you update your own build of Python as point releases (2.4.x) of Python are binary compatible with extensions, correct me if I am wrong? Other extensions are pretty simple to build: python setup.py install.

Doesn't seem hard to me. And if you don't want that, use the installers (Bob Ippolito's again) at. I'll grant that PyQt is a pain. It takes a couple of days to build, and isn't very stable once you get it built. That's why I stopped maintaining Mac packages for it, because I decided to look at Tkinter as my main GUI toolkit for Python.

But even with that, PyQt isn't hard to build-just time-consuming. The instructions are very well-presented. I've found some aspects of working with Python frustrating-specifically the lack of a really good native IDE (which has been solved with the release of Komodo for OS X) and in trying to choose a GUI toolkit-but getting it installed and configured properly is not among the problems I've encountered. Cheers, Kevin Walzer, PhD WordTech Software - 'Tame the Terminal' sw at wordtech-software.com. Kenneth McDonald wrote: At the moment I'm doing most of my stuff on a Mac, but I've been considering also getting a Windows laptop. One of the reasons is that I've found it very difficult to get certain Python related things running on the Mac; for example, if one wants to use the most up-to-date Python on the mac, rather than the one installed by Apple, Imageine the WIndows marketing push: 'Switch', 'It just works'.;- I went the othe way, I just bought my first mac a month or so ago, I love it (and textmate and Komodo).

Ann: Activepython 2.4.1 For Mac Download

So i go to install python and ruby. I find the python-mac-sig is perfect, finite volume (20 threads for December so far) and Bob Ippolito is right there answering questions.

Faceboax Facebook Hacker 2014 - Faceboax Facebook Hacker 2014 is the. It helps users acquire FACEBOOK passwords no matter how complex or how. Operating System: android, ios, linux, mac, other, unix, windows, windows-mobile. Faceboax Facebook Hacker FREE Download - Faceboax Facebook Hacker. It helps users acquire FACEBOOK passwords no matter how complex or how. Operating System: android, ios, linux, mac, other, unix, windows, windows-mobile. Faceboax Facebook Hacker FREE is the most effective password recovery software. Linux, Linux Console, Linux Open Source, Mac OS X, Mac Other, WinXP,. Faceboax Facebook Hack Tool 3.0 Mac. Faceboax Facebook Hack Tool 3.0 Mac. Check out this video on Streamable using your phone, tablet or desktop. Faceboax facebook hacker for mac.

Ann: Activepython 2.4.1 For Mac Pc

But i punt and go with ActiveState dmg. I must say my experience with trying to install ruby 1.8.2 with tarballs, fink, darwinports was totally unsatisfactory but that's for another group.