In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ajaksu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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_languages#Gene... > > (Comparison of programming languages) > > And this entry in the talk page > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming_languages... > > (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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list