standalone erlang

Bengt Kleberg <>
Thu Feb 17 17:52:41 CET 2005


James Hague wrote:
...deleted
> It depends: Do you want there to be a difference between installation
> and just running the thing?

i think it is a trade off. i like things to be simple, but not only for 
the user, but also for the developer.
the simplest thing for the user is a ''one file installation that is the 
executable''.
if it is sufficiently simple for the developer to create such a beast, 
then i am all for it.
however, if it is much simpler for the developer to have a 
selfextracting archive (that runs from the extracted directory if 
present), then i as a developer am willing to create the extra problem 
for the user.


...deleted
> 
> 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?

yes it is bad, weird and silent. but simpler. i, and perhaps others, am 
willing to live with that amount of bad, weird and silent, provided the 
benefits are sufficient.
if the selfextracting archive can run directly from the extracted 
directory (including directly after having extracted it the first time) 
then we are making things simpler for the user (compared to an extra 
installation step).
if we can get rid of the whole installation by throwing the directory 
and archive, then it is simpler for the user than having an 
uninstalltion script.

imho.


> A single executable is best.

you are correct.
but i assume you know that worse is better :-)


bengt



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list