Thu Feb 17 15:47:34 CET 2005
> distribute one file seems to be ok. but why insist upon one file after
> imho, if all the thousand files are placed in one directory it looks
> like one file. and to remove the program it is sufficient to remove one
It depends: Do you want there to be a difference between installation
and just running the thing?
Let's say I write a utility to parse through certain types of XML
files. I want to give this utility to some people I work with. So I
package it up and I give them a file.
If they can just run the file from the command line--or double-click
it or whatever--then that's great. It's exactly the same as if I had
written a program in Perl or Python and used one of the available
toolkits to roll the interpreter and script into a single executable.
Now if they double click on the program and it unpacks itself into a
folder in the current directory, then that's bad. It's a weird and
silent behavior. Heck, why not just zip up the folder and give it to
them in the first place? They they'll at least know that it has to be
unzipped first. And if instead we throw up a prompt asking "Where do
you want to unpack this?" then it's effectively an installer. Why
doesn't it create a Start menu shortcut and uninstall information like
other Windows installers do?
A single executable is best.
More information about the erlang-questions