Talk:Python (programming language)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

{{fact}} in lede

How, exactly, is the tagged statement ("various parts of the language have formal specifications and standards") likely to be challenged, or even vaguely controversial? There is no great big list of specifications adhered to by the stdlib to reference, so either an example would have to be given plus its citation, cluttering up the lede, or the statement would have to be removed, which would be a loss because it does contribute information, and make the point about CPython's de facto-ness. I'm tempted to remove the template right now, because who in their right mind would challenge that statement?, but I'd like to see what the justification is. 79.78.106.225 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement is simply meaningless to a reader without a reference that states or directs the reader to the source of exactly what parts are standard or have formal description and which don't. The statement only appears to reflect author's uncertainty over the subject matter. Kbrose (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, there is no Great Big List of which bits of Python are specified and which are not. A sourced example (the WSGI server) is provided later in the article. The statement is very far from meaningless: it makes the ad-hoc-ness of the Python 'specification' clearer. There is no 'uncertainty': some parts follow standards (eg, the HTTP clients and servers, the HTML parsing libraries), but the majority does not. Because there is no single authoritative external source, either the statement should be removed, or the tag should be removed. I assert that the statement is as sourced as it needs to be, is unlikely to be challenged or even slightly controversial (unless you're disputing its truthfulness, rather than the sourcing), so it should stay and the tag be removed. 79.72.164.229 (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To say that an HTTP implementation follows the HTTP standard is not particularly interesting -- if it didn't, it would be buggy. It seems to me that the standards being referred to are language-side standards, or roughly, APIs. An example of this would be the Python Database API, which specifies how Python modules for talking to databases should work. --FOo (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where’s the helloworld?

Somebody add one example please. Wipe (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello World is simple:

        print "Hello World"

But does it add something to this page? I don't see it. If yes I would suggest adding one or two examples at the end of chapter 4, before chapter "Implementations". It would be better to give the link to a long overview —Preceding unsigned comment added by KumpelBert (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cython

This really doesn't belong in the "Implementations" section. Not sure if the new-ish user who reverted it there is the same as the IP who added it a couple days ago. In any case, Cython (and Pyrex) are different languages than Python and are not implementations. It's true that there is an intersection between the valid Cython programs and the valid Python programs, but there is a considerable disjunction on both sides too.

Probably equally important is that Cython is still a quite experimental language, not something in widespread use. We've seen lots of real Python implementations come and go over the years (Vyper, Prothon, etc). Some new effort, however well meaning and useful it might be, should find a notable audience and user base before being listed here. In truth, I think that Stackless is slightly borderline for where it is mentioned, but it was at least for a while pretty widely used, so inclusion is plausible. LotLE×talk 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)