On Jan 28, 4:44 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > 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/Standardization 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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
