Python Standardization: Wikipedia entry

[Paddy]

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/Compari...ral_comparison
(Comparison of programming languages)
And this entry in the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...ized_Python.3F
(Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)

- Thanks.

[Roy Smith]

In article
<be**********************************@y5g2000hsf.g ooglegroups.com>,
ajaksu <aj****@gmail.comwrote:

On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <[e-mail]:

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/Compari...languages#Gene...
(Comparison of programming languages)
And this entry in the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...ming_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.

[Terry Reedy]

"Roy Smith" <ro*@panix.comwrote in message
news:ro***********************@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]

In article <ma*************************************@python.or g>,
"Terry Reedy" <tj*****@udel.eduwrote:

"Roy Smith" <ro*@panix.comwrote in message
news:ro***********************@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"?

[John Nagle]

Paddy 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/Compari...ral_comparison
(Comparison of programming languages)
And this entry in the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...ized_Python.3F
(Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)

- Thanks.

That's correct. Python is not standardized by any standards body. And no
two implementations are even close to compiling the same language.

A consequence of the lack of standardization is that it discourages
implementations. There are about four implementations of something like
Python (other than CPython), and none of them are close to being usable.
Letting the author of one implementation control the language discourages
other implementations.

Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea.

John Nagle

[Colin J. Williams]

John Nagle wrote:

Paddy 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/Compari...ral_comparison

(Comparison of programming languages)
And this entry in the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...ized_Python.3F

(Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)

- Thanks.

That's correct. Python is not standardized by any standards body.
And no
two implementations are even close to compiling the same language.

A consequence of the lack of standardization is that it discourages
implementations. There are about four implementations of something like
Python (other than CPython), and none of them are close to being usable.
Letting the author of one implementation control the language discourages
other implementations.

Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea.

John Nagle

Better to wait for 3.0?

Colin W.

[Terry Reedy]

"John Nagle" <na***@animats.comwrote in message
news:47***********************@news.sonic.net...
| And no two implementations are even close to compiling the same language.

That is not what some alternate implementors have claimed. How you done
actual tests to prove them wrong? (And, of course, 'close' would need some
discussion.)

| A consequence of the lack of standardization is that it discourages
implementations.

Evidence? My impression is that there were more implementations of C
before it was standardized than after, or certainly now.

Anyway, as I have already said, I think Python is in someways better
standardized (even if 'unofficially') than C. Another example: in Python,
n >i == n//(2**i) for integer n and non-negative integer i. C89 gives
the same for non-negative n but the result is 'implementation defined' for
negative n. (Yes, I know at least partially why the committee could not
agree on a standard definition for this case.)

I think one thing being overlooked in implementation counts is that CPython
is in a real sense several implementations: one each for WinNT, Linux, MAC,
OS, Solaris, and so one. They happen to be nearly the same with the diffs
implemented as C #ifdefs.

The reason for this, in turn, is that CPython is open source *and*
welcoming of patches to make all the different versions. So someone
wanting to write a version for system X does not have to start from scratch
but only has to write miminal patches. (Yes, this is helped by C
standardization, as well as CPython being intentionally writen for
portability.)

The proliferation of C implementations in the 80s was at least partly due
to most being proprietary closed source. So there was a lot of duplication
of effort, as well as the sometimes rather useless variations that
stimulated the official standard.

Terry Jan Reedy

[John Nagle]

Colin J. Williams wrote:

John Nagle wrote:

>Paddy 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/Compari...ral_comparison

(Comparison of programming languages)
And this entry in the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...ized_Python.3F

(Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)

- Thanks.

That's correct. Python is not standardized by any standards body.
And no
two implementations are even close to compiling the same language.

A consequence of the lack of standardization is that it discourages
implementations. There are about four implementations of something like
Python (other than CPython), and none of them are close to being usable.
Letting the author of one implementation control the language discourages
other implementations.

Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea.

John Nagle

Better to wait for 3.0?

I'd argue for standardizing from 2.5, and viewing 3.x as a possible
future upgrade.

John Nagle

[Terry Reedy]

"John Nagle" <na***@animats.comwrote in message
news:47***********************@news.sonic.net..

Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea.

ANSI does not actually make standards. It make metastandards about how to
make standards (both style and process) and accredites US standard-making
bodies that will follow those metastandards. The processes require
committee meetings and public comment periods -- a few years and some $$$.
There in no guarantee that what would come out of such a process would be
what went in, so 'Standard Python' might easily be a language with no
implementations.

ANSI standards are owned by ANSI or perhaps the accrediting body. In any
case, electronic copies sell for $30. They cannot legally be accessed free
as for the docs at python.org.

[Paddy]

On Feb 1, 12:18 am, "Terry Reedy" <[e-mail]:

"John Nagle" <[e-mail] in message

news:47***********************@news.sonic.net..

Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea.

ANSI does not actually make standards. It make metastandards about how to
make standards (both style and process) and accredites US standard-making
bodies that will follow those metastandards. The processes require
committee meetings and public comment periods -- a few years and some $$$.
There in no guarantee that what would come out of such a process would be
what went in, so 'Standard Python' might easily be a language with no
implementations.

ANSI standards are owned by ANSI or perhaps the accrediting body. In any
case, electronic copies sell for $30. They cannot legally be accessed free
as for the docs at python.org.

HI Terry,
Is their a standardizing body out their to `legitimise` open source
languages like Python?

- Paddy.

[Terry Reedy]

"Paddy" <pa*******@googlemail.comwrote in message
news:9f**********************************@v4g2000h sf.googlegroups.com...
| On Feb 1, 12:18 am, "Terry Reedy" <[e-mail]:
| ANSI does not actually make standards. It make metastandards about how
to
| make standards (both style and process) and accredites US
standard-making
| bodies that will follow those metastandards. The processes require
| committee meetings and public comment periods -- a few years and some
$$$.
| There in no guarantee that what would come out of such a process would
be
| what went in, so 'Standard Python' might easily be a language with no
| implementations.
| >
| ANSI standards are owned by ANSI or perhaps the accrediting body. In
any
| case, electronic copies sell for $30. They cannot legally be accessed
free
| as for the docs at python.org.
|
| HI Terry,
| Is their a standardizing body out their to `legitimise` open source
| languages like Python?

Not that I know of. There are at least a couple hundred ANSI-accredited
bodies. The application fee to become one is $3000. But some group could
act independently, perhaps with streamlined procedures, including meeting
by email or chat to cut out the large expenses of meetings, for instance.

tjr

[Pete Forman]

Paul Boddie <pa**@boddie.org.ukwrites:

Yes, you don't really want standardisation ANSI/ISO-style as the
standards themselves are not freely distributable

Some ISO standards have been made available for free. Copyright terms
apply. Over 300 are listed here:

http://standards.iso.org/ittf/Public...rds/index.html

--
Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
WesternGeco -./\.- by myself and does not represent
pe*********@westerngeco.com -./\.- the opinion of Schlumberger or
http://petef.port5.com -./\.- WesternGeco.

[Paddy]

On Feb 1, 12:13 pm, Paul Boddie <[e-mail]:

Ultimately, this leaves the W3C as the only genuinely open formal
standards body that I can think of immediately, but I think Python is
somewhat peripheral for them, despite extensive usage of Python by
various W3C people.

Paul

W3C got me thinking of Javascript/ECMAscript.
Isn't ECMA a standards body?

- Paddy.

[Eduardo O. Padoan]

On Jan 29, 2008 2:43 PM, John Nagle <na***@animats.comwrote:

Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea.

>From GvR himself:

"""
- Does a specification (ISO, ECMA, ..) is planned for Python and when ?

No, never. I don't see the point.
"""
http://blogs.nuxeo.com/sections/blog...ido_van_rossum

--
http://www.advogato.org/person/eopadoan/
Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/edcrypt