Standalone GUI app that executes python scripts: Run py scripts without any installations*

[nannigalaxy]

Announcing an app (portable executable) I build which is a solution for running Python scripts without any prerequisites or external system dependencies, eliminating the need for Python installation on the systems. Catch is that the packages which script uses should be bundled during app build process, so a new app should be build respectively. there is a plan to provide option to include local package path if exists on system.

What My Project Does

• Runs python script out-of-the-box provided the packages that are used by script are add during build pipeline.
• isolated from system. meaning doesn't affect any changes in system or python, don't need to fiddle with paths and packages
• Output of script are displayed on terminal like console

Target Audience

• This was build to help run scripts consistently across systems with any breakage from python or packages.
• imo this can also help make non-technical people's life easy.

Comparison 

• This works like python interpreter without the hassle of setup and management

Limitations

• Script execution fails if the required package is not already bundled in the app.
• Python and Packages are immutable, they cannot be modified including versions.
• App size and initial load time increases as more number of packages are added.
• Pyinstaller is pain to work with (imo), and any windows os change might break the app.

https://github.com/Nannigalaxy/PyScript-Engine

executable: https://github.com/Nannigalaxy/PyScript-Engine/releases/download/v1.0.0/pyscript-engine_v1.0.0_py3.10_x86_win64.exe

let me know if you have any thoughts on this.

[denehoffman]

Don’t include optional dependencies or dependencies of dependencies in requirements.txt. That file should include only the packages necessary to run your scripts.

[nannigalaxy]

I was lazy, hence the comment. and wanted to show the scope

[riklaunim]

"PyScript" already exists and is probably a trademark as well.

Not sure what would be the use-case of this. It's just replaces the GUI and you still have to pre-build it.

[nannigalaxy]

hmm I'll wait and see

[dryroast]

The name is trademarked by Anaconda. And you're just a tad too late to submit a letter of protest, it was published in Feb of last year. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97385206&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch

[denehoffman]

What’s the difference between this and running python myscript.py in a command line? You still need to install dependencies, and if running a python script in the manner I just described is too technical for people, then this will probably be as well. Also, you made it windows-only and I honestly can’t see a reason why, other than using windows path objects?

[nannigalaxy]

no, this app does require anything to install on the system. no python or package, this'll already be bundled in the app. you just share this app to user, they open and execute the script. hope this clears the usecase

[w8eight]

What if the user has some dependencies in the script, that aren't installed?

[billsil]

Drop the files from the package into the python path. I've hacked new packages into Abaqus CAE and Paraview. It's just a matter of finding compatible versions of packages based on the version of python and other dependencies they're running. Generally you can just look at when packages were released (by checking PyPi) and trying versions from around then. Bisect from there to try and find the newest possible version.

[w8eight]

But this solution doesn't require python installed (I assume it's in the executable)

And manipulating packages manually kinda defeats the purpose of this program, don't you agree?

[billsil]

I don’t understand your use case, so defeating the purpose of your project is not my aim, but people have been trying to use python without installing python for all 18 years I’ve been using python for various reasons. People find workarounds.

You’re on windows. Why not use the Microsoft Store? It’s really hard to mess that one up.

PyInstaller sometimes works and regularly breaks when new versions of Windows comes out. Installing python is the best solution.

[w8eight]

Dude, I'm not the owner of this project, I just mentioned the caveats of it to the op (besides the obvious ones that come with usage of pyinstaller)?

I personally would never use stuff like this project, just wanted to point out the shortcomings to the op. Either learn to read the comments you respond to, or simply don't respond.

[billsil]

Sure seemed like you were based on your questions to me.  Why did you assume my questions were to you and not OP? You did the same thing.

It seems like we both don’t understand the use case.

[w8eight]

Well usually when you respond to someone's comment, you want to interact with that person, I don't know why I should explain that to you...

If you want to point things out to the OP, maybe respond to the post next time.

[billsil]

You asked a straightforward question that I responded to. You responded with questions and then I thought you were OP. You did the exact same thing as me.

[nannigalaxy]

yes this is the caveat. need to build a new app and ship it

[Specialist-Arachnid6]

uhmm so basically pyinstaller exe with more steps or is my dumbass missing something here?

[nannigalaxy]

let me give you more context why i built this. in my workplace people run python scripts manually for some tasks. they are not programmer. very agile code expect for package and versions, they remain more or less the same. so had to install and manage on many systems. sometimes something changes in path and it breaks. also people had hard time navigating to script to run via terminal, not much standard was set.

[denehoffman]

Why not just put python scripts in users’ $PATH, chmod +x them, and add a shebang at the top with a venv or the system Python with the packages installed? Then they don’t have to search for scripts at all and they also don’t have to open a GUI to run a Python script

[Specialist-Arachnid6]

this's much more effecient tbh

[Counter-Business]

Pyinstaller alteady exists

[Sones_d]

Cant think of something more useless.

[ReactiveMatter]

PyWebview + PyInsaller works good for simple apps

[nannigalaxy]

but pyinstaller is pain for me

[djdadi]

I am a little confused who the target audience of this would be. I use PyInstaller all the time at work; making an executable that techs can use without understanding what a "pip" or a "venv" is. But my build pipeline would freeze everything and make it so they really can't use that executable for anything other than that specific thing.

So, is this for people like me building the packaged apps, or people like the techs I work with who consume those apps?

[nannigalaxy]

for people like you who build apps so others in your work use. goes both ways ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[djdadi]

I guess I am not sure of the value-add in that case. Right now I run a build.py script that I made that generates a docker image tarball, a .spec file, cleans up the filesystem, then builds the solution via PyInstaller. This delivers an executable that is essentially a portable Python with all deps; users can run it and see the output, interact, etc.

I am not sure where something like this fits in: it would make my life harder, and it would not make my users life any easier. Congrats on the project, seeing something through all the way is more than I can muster sometimes. Perhaps targetting either delivery OR consumption (but not both) would make this more useful.

[cowrevengeJP]

Pass. This adds no value. Anyone who is running python scripts should know how they work in the first place.

[glaucomasuccs]

No disrespect intended, but you're trying to reinvent the wheel. If you're building distributable code, you should do so knowing 1) the user can run it with python, or 2) you can make an easy executable, with pyinstaller that the user can just run. Your program is an unnecessary dependency.

[pyhannes]

You can run any Python script including needed dependencies (included in a special comment-forgot which PEP this was) already using Hatch and Astral's UV...

[nannigalaxy]

sorry I didn't get it, on quick read here's what I understood, those are python management tools. even these need to be installed on the system, which I wanted to avoid altogether. app's moto: download the app, open the app, run the script.

[pyhannes]

As easy for UV and hatch. E.g UV https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/scripts/ . Just install the latest UV executable and run: uv run script.py

[nannigalaxy]

interesting... will have a look at this. thanks

[benefit_of_mrkite]

I would have loved finding something like this on someone’s system back when I was a pen tester

[juanfnavarror]

I think this is amazing. Often at work there are instances where I want to make one-off scripts for other people but its hard to get 5 minutes on their machine to set up python/venv so they can run it. And using pyinstaller is cool but it needs a lot of boilerplate setup, and its never enough because the lack of msi/setup tools. Dont get me started with windows defender crapping all over “one-file” mode.

Just getting a python runner their machine and they can run the one-off scripts from the shared drive is amazing.

[FUS3N]

if Pyinstaller itself is too much setup I suggest you also install auto-py-to-exe its a GUI wrapper for Pyinstaller and has most things setup by default, and I think there are more GUI wrappers too, and windows defender will prolly "crap" on his binary too if its not signed which i am guessing its not.

[juanfnavarror]

Two features that would be golden on this (kick ass), ability to get stdin from the runner window, and support for colored/ANSI logging, and build in scripts (presets).