[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.python

Python Standardization: Wikipedia entry

Paddy

1/28/2008 12:32:00 AM

I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
Specifically in the context of this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages#General_...
(Comparison of programming languages)
And this entry in the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming_languages#Standardized...
(Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)

- Thanks.
23 Answers

ajaksu

1/28/2008 1:06:00 AM

0

On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <paddy3...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
> contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
> Specifically in the context of this table:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_lang......
> (Comparison of programming languages)
> And this entry in the talk page
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming......
> (Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)
>
> - Thanks.

Hmmm. Seems to me that "Is X Standardized" in the given context means
having a formal, published standard issued by some Standards
organization. While you can discuss the meaning of some so-called
standards (like W3C's 'recommendations', RFCs, etc.), Python, IMHO,
doesn't fit the label. There is no "Standard" to reference that is
implementation, documentation and core-dev's opinion independent to a
reasonable degree.

I guess MilesAgain gives the best arguments regarding this issue.

Not-that-my-opinion-should-have-any-weight-ly y'rs
Daniel

Paddy

1/28/2008 1:18:00 AM

0

On Jan 28, 1:05 am, ajaksu <aja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <paddy3...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
> > contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
> > Specifically in the context of this table:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_lang......
> > (Comparison of programming languages)
> > And this entry in the talk page
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming......
> > (Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)
>
> > - Thanks.
>
> Hmmm. Seems to me that "Is X Standardized" in the given context means
> having a formal, published standard issued by some Standards
> organization. While you can discuss the meaning of some so-called
> standards (like W3C's 'recommendations', RFCs, etc.), Python, IMHO,
> doesn't fit the label. There is no "Standard" to reference that is
> implementation, documentation and core-dev's opinion independent to a
> reasonable degree.
>
> I guess MilesAgain gives the best arguments regarding this issue.
>
> Not-that-my-opinion-should-have-any-weight-ly y'rs
> Daniel

Thanks Daniel. I am very close to the issue and would like to step
back and c.l.p'ers opinion.

Roy Smith

1/28/2008 1:42:00 AM

0

In article
<be24511b-f769-44bc-8214-b22015a5e07e@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
ajaksu <ajaksu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <paddy3...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
> > contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
> > Specifically in the context of this table:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_lang......
> > (Comparison of programming languages)
> > And this entry in the talk page
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming......
> > (Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)
> >
> > - Thanks.
>
> Hmmm. Seems to me that "Is X Standardized" in the given context means
> having a formal, published standard issued by some Standards
> organization.

That's exactly what it means. For example, if I'm buying a C++ compiler, I
can specify in the contract, "Must comply with ISO 14882", and everybody
will know what I'm talking about.

On the other side of the fence, if I'm a free-lance C++ developer, I can
specify to my customers that the code I write will work properly when
compiled with a compiler that meets ISO 14882. Whether such a compiler
actually exists, is besides the point :-)

Python has no such standard. Sure, there's the stuff on docs.python.org,
but it's kind of hard to write a contract which says, "Must comply with the
stuff on docs.python.org", and have it be meaningful in a legal sense.

So, I think the "No" in the "Standardized?" column for python is exactly
right. That's not to say you can't have something good which isn't
standardized. Sometimes standards committees even go off into left field
and field break stuff in the process of standardizing it. Some things have
so many different standards (i.e. the pletora of unix standards), it's
almost worthless to say it's standardized. But, as it stands, the
Wikipedia article is correct.

Russ P.

1/28/2008 4:45:00 AM

0

On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <be24511b-f769-44bc-8214-b22015a5e...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> ajaksu <aja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <paddy3...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
> > > contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
> > > Specifically in the context of this table:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_lang......
> > > (Comparison of programming languages)
> > > And this entry in the talk page
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming......
> > > (Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)
>
> > > - Thanks.
>
> > Hmmm. Seems to me that "Is X Standardized" in the given context means
> > having a formal, published standard issued by some Standards
> > organization.
>
> That's exactly what it means. For example, if I'm buying a C++ compiler, I
> can specify in the contract, "Must comply with ISO 14882", and everybody
> will know what I'm talking about.
>
> On the other side of the fence, if I'm a free-lance C++ developer, I can
> specify to my customers that the code I write will work properly when
> compiled with a compiler that meets ISO 14882. Whether such a compiler
> actually exists, is besides the point :-)
>
> Python has no such standard. Sure, there's the stuff on docs.python.org,
> but it's kind of hard to write a contract which says, "Must comply with the
> stuff on docs.python.org", and have it be meaningful in a legal sense.
>
> So, I think the "No" in the "Standardized?" column for python is exactly
> right. That's not to say you can't have something good which isn't
> standardized. Sometimes standards committees even go off into left field
> and field break stuff in the process of standardizing it. Some things have
> so many different standards (i.e. the pletora of unix standards), it's
> almost worthless to say it's standardized. But, as it stands, the
> Wikipedia article is correct.

I agree. As far as I know, Python is not formally
"standardized" by any recognized standards
authority such as ANSI or ISO. (If it were, it
wouldn't have a "BDFL.")

For most domains in which Python is used, that is
not an issue, but for some potential uses it could
be (e.g., safety-critical).

FWIW, the "most" standardized language is probably
Ada. Not only does it have a formal written
standard, but I believe it also has a formal
suite of tests that a standard Ada compiler is
required to pass. [For some reason, Ada does not
get the respect or the attention it deserves, but
that's another topic.]

Paddy

1/28/2008 7:24:00 AM

0

On Jan 28, 4:44 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <be24511b-f769-44bc-8214-b22015a5e...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > ajaksu <aja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <paddy3...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
> > > > contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
> > > > Specifically in the context of this table:
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_lang......
> > > > (Comparison of programming languages)
> > > > And this entry in the talk page
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming......
> > > > (Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)
>
> > > > - Thanks.
>
> > > Hmmm. Seems to me that "Is X Standardized" in the given context means
> > > having a formal, published standard issued by some Standards
> > > organization.
>
> > That's exactly what it means. For example, if I'm buying a C++ compiler, I
> > can specify in the contract, "Must comply with ISO 14882", and everybody
> > will know what I'm talking about.
>
> > On the other side of the fence, if I'm a free-lance C++ developer, I can
> > specify to my customers that the code I write will work properly when
> > compiled with a compiler that meets ISO 14882. Whether such a compiler
> > actually exists, is besides the point :-)
>
> > Python has no such standard. Sure, there's the stuff on docs.python.org,
> > but it's kind of hard to write a contract which says, "Must comply with the
> > stuff on docs.python.org", and have it be meaningful in a legal sense.
>
> > So, I think the "No" in the "Standardized?" column for python is exactly
> > right. That's not to say you can't have something good which isn't
> > standardized. Sometimes standards committees even go off into left field
> > and field break stuff in the process of standardizing it. Some things have
> > so many different standards (i.e. the pletora of unix standards), it's
> > almost worthless to say it's standardized. But, as it stands, the
> > Wikipedia article is correct.
>
> I agree. As far as I know, Python is not formally
> "standardized" by any recognized standards
> authority such as ANSI or ISO. (If it were, it
> wouldn't have a "BDFL.")
>
> For most domains in which Python is used, that is
> not an issue, but for some potential uses it could
> be (e.g., safety-critical).
>
> FWIW, the "most" standardized language is probably
> Ada. Not only does it have a formal written
> standard, but I believe it also has a formal
> suite of tests that a standard Ada compiler is
> required to pass. [For some reason, Ada does not
> get the respect or the attention it deserves, but
> that's another topic.]

Thanks Roy, Russ. I agree that Python is not standardized the way
other languages are.
But still, I look at the table, read the article linked as the column
header, and can see that their is discrepancy.
The column header links to the article on standardization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand...
Which has a definition of standardization which is very different from
what you may cite.

I read the column headings article and just can't help feeling that
Python conforms to *that* definition.

- Paddy.

Paul Boddie

1/28/2008 10:29:00 AM

0

On 28 Jan, 02:05, ajaksu <aja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmm. Seems to me that "Is X Standardized" in the given context means
> having a formal, published standard issued by some Standards
> organization. While you can discuss the meaning of some so-called
> standards (like W3C's 'recommendations', RFCs, etc.), Python, IMHO,
> doesn't fit the label. There is no "Standard" to reference that is
> implementation, documentation and core-dev's opinion independent to a
> reasonable degree.
>
> I guess MilesAgain gives the best arguments regarding this issue.

Agreed. The supposed definition of Python is decided by the developers
of CPython, which is why every other implementation has to chase
behind that group making changes as the language definition shifts.
You could argue that Java is in a similar situation: a controlling
body with their own implementations, albeit with a process for
suggesting changes and arguably more complete documentation. Looking
at the table of languages, we see that Java is indeed categorised as
not having a standard.

Of course, one could contend that languages like C# aren't really
standardised either, since everyone knows that ECMA standardisation is
just a convenient rubber-stamping process, as we have seen with the
adoption of "Office Open XML" (OOXML) as a standard by ECMA, whilst
the ISO standardisation attempt for OOXML was sunk (despite Microsoft
ballot-stuffing) due to glaring flaws in that so-called standard.

As I probably pointed out before, people have advocated a standard for
Python, such as a presenter at EuroPython 2006 who had been alarmed
that features such as lambda which his team used extensively were at
one point scheduled for removal from the language. Unfortunately,
there hasn't been significant scope for differentiation between
implementations of Python, so one could argue that demand for a
standard hasn't yet reached a critical level, but I imagine that some
kind of independent documentation of what Python (or a subset of
Python) is may eventually emerge in some form or other.

Paul

Terry Reedy

1/29/2008 3:28:00 AM

0


"Paddy" <paddy3118@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4dc87a25-1d90-4b66-8fa4-d0d41f48344e@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
|I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
| contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".

Depends entirely on the operative meaning of standardized. Formal
standards body? Obviously no.

Specified in a standard-setting document? Yes. In fact, in someways,
Python is better standardized that C, for instance, in that the Python
standard usefully standardizes some things that the C standard leaved
unstandardized as 'implementation defined'.

Example 1. Order of evaluation of function arguments. Python: left to
right. C: undefined (and unstandardized), I believe.

Example 2: Strings for Infinity and Not-A-Number. Python: will standardize
in 2.6 to hide the variation in C implementations (or is Microsoft just
non-compliant here?).



Roy Smith

1/29/2008 4:02:00 AM

0

In article <mailman.1207.1201577269.896.python-list@python.org>,
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:

> "Paddy" <paddy3118@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4dc87a25-1d90-4b66-8fa4-d0d41f48344e@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> |I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
> | contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
>
> Depends entirely on the operative meaning of standardized. Formal
> standards body? Obviously no.
>
> Specified in a standard-setting document? Yes. In fact, in someways,
> Python is better standardized that C, for instance, in that the Python
> standard usefully standardizes some things that the C standard leaved
> unstandardized as 'implementation defined'.
>
> Example 1. Order of evaluation of function arguments. Python: left to
> right. C: undefined (and unstandardized), I believe.
>
> Example 2: Strings for Infinity and Not-A-Number. Python: will standardize
> in 2.6 to hide the variation in C implementations (or is Microsoft just
> non-compliant here?).

But, surely Python has plenty of "implementation defined" aspects.
Especially in the libraries. Especially those parts of the libraries which
are thin layers on top of operating system services (os and socket come to
mind as two highly variable areas).

Terry Reedy

1/29/2008 9:26:00 AM

0


"Roy Smith" <roy@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-3C105C.23015128012008@70-1-84-166.area1.spcsdns.net...
| But, surely Python has plenty of "implementation defined" aspects.
| Especially in the libraries.

I personally do not consider the libraries as part of the language (as
opposed to the distribution) and was not referring to them. The semantics
of the syntax is pretty tightly defined. The main exception is floating
point, which is a nuisance. Which is why one implementation aspect thereof
is being standardized in the next version.

| Especially those parts of the libraries which
| are thin layers on top of operating system services (os and socket come
to
| mind as two highly variable areas).

I am sure that sockets are not part of the C89 standard. Hence the high
variability. (I don't know about the newer C standard). I would expect
that socket.py makes the variability no worse and presume that it masks at
least a bit of it. Ditto for some os services.

tjr

Roy Smith

1/29/2008 2:00:00 PM

0

In article <mailman.1215.1201598807.896.python-list@python.org>,
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:

> "Roy Smith" <roy@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:roy-3C105C.23015128012008@70-1-84-166.area1.spcsdns.net...
> | But, surely Python has plenty of "implementation defined" aspects.
> | Especially in the libraries.
>
> I personally do not consider the libraries as part of the language (as
> opposed to the distribution) and was not referring to them.

I realize that there is a difference between the core language and the
libraries, but Python depends on the libraries more than a lot of other
languages do. They are the "batteries included" part.

Indeed, there is a lot of stuff in the "Python Library Reference" which in
most languages would be considered part of the core. The description of
boolean operations (and, or, not), for example. String, sequence, and
dictionary methods. Where do you draw the line and say, "The core language
ends here; the rest is just libraries"?