Python Standardization: Wikipedia entry
bruno.42.desthuilliers at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com
Fri Feb 1 11:43:35 CET 2008
John Nagle a écrit :
> 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),
Given that Python is a relatively "small" language (wrt/ visibility,
compared to say C, Ada, Java etc), I'd say this already makes quite a
lot implementations (how many Perl implementations around ?) - which
contradict your first assertion.
> and none of them are close to being usable.
Care to back this claim ?
FWIW, I've only played with stackless so far, and I mean "played" - not
"effectively tried to use on production" - but AFAICT it seems to work
just fine. Jython is a couple versions behind, but I wouldn't count this
as "not close to being usable". Don't know about IronPython (not
interested in this .NET stuff) but I've not seen any complaint about it
so far. So if you have more informations about all these "unusable"
implementations, please share.
> Letting the author of one implementation control the language discourages
> other implementations.
GvR is not "the author of one implementation" but the author of the
> Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea.
Or a very bad one. Anyway, GvR - as the author - has the final word on
this. You can try to convince him if you want.
More information about the Python-list