Python Standardization: Wikipedia entry
Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 05:44:43 CET 2008
On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, Roy Smith <r... at panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <be24511b-f769-44bc-8214-b22015a5e... at y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> ajaksu <aja... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <paddy3... at 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_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.]
More information about the Python-list