Talk:Python (programming language)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Object-oriented vs. Object-orientation

Is this correct?

Python supports multiple programming paradigms, including object-oriented, imperative and functional programming styles. (emphasis mine)

I think it should say "object-orientation", not "object-oriented". I have made this adjustment before and it was changed back. Am I in the wrong here?

EDIT: Boy I feel stupid. I did not read the full sentence. I'm sorry for wasting your time.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Megakacktus (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with CPython

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. -- Chamith (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

---

It's important to make the distinction between language and implementation, but I don't think we need separate articles to do so. For the bulk of its users, and in many of the sources, CPython is Python, unless otherwise specified. AFAIK, the language spec is "do what CPython does (or documents)".

Also, a look at the current material on CPython shows a discussion of the GIL, but little else of encyclopedic value that isn't also discussed in this article. I think a section in this article is a better place to discuss the main implementation than a separate article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Python, more than other languages (maybe Java of 15 years ago), seems to have a community of developers who delight in nothing better than swapping between interpreters. The current article is a vacuous list of little more than version numbers, but there is scope for more interesting coverage on this topic (and the other interpreters).

I've got an all-day meeting on Monday that's likely to spend half of it talking about interpreter choices. If you're not good, I'll make you read the minutes! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. There are many Python implementations, and almost all of them have their own page. CPython is by far the most commonly used Python implementation, so it wouldn't make sense for other implementations to have their own page, and CPython to not.

The main Python_(programming_language) is almost too long, and I'm not for putting more stuff in there. The Python_(programming_language)#Implementations section could probably be trimmed a little (too much detail that is then covered in sub-pages).

peterl (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the list of supported platforms does have some value - I wouldn't want to delete that (and definitely not want to merge it into the main article). However, I agree with you that CPython is by far the most popular implementation, so things like the GIL should be treated in this article as well (in addition to the CPython article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.194.68 (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Python is the programming language, while CPython is the official implementation. Having separate articles is nice and gives a suitable place for content about the official implementation. I think CPython is useful in the same way that Ruby MRI is useful. It's true that CPython is the official implementation, so it's obviously very special, but conceptually we should consider it to be an implementation of the Python language. Best regards. Huihermit (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose consensus apparent. Removing merge tag.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.