Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Python (programming language)) (bot |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
== Indentation not significant? ==
Does anyone besides [[Special:Contributions/Strombrg|Strombrg]] think that Python's use of indentation isn't worth mentioning in the lede? I strongly disagree as it's one of the more unique, useful, and visually striking attributes of the language. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
:I don't consider it's use of indentation it's core/defining feature, so I also don't consider it significant enough for the lead. Section 4.1 on indentation could make more of a deal about it in comparison to other languages. [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 05:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 9:
:strombrg here: When Python is attacked, it's normally attacked for its whitespace for blocks. It's now one of the things I now love most about the language, but when I first saw it, I thought it was awful - as is the reaction of many others new to the language. Putting something this likely to discourage newcomers in the first paragraph is just asking for trouble. Yes, unusual != bad, but it's important to keep in mind that this perspective is "truer" in technical discussion, not marketing discussion, because it's very common for humans to mistake the descriptive for the normative. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Strombrg|Strombrg]] ([[User talk:Strombrg|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strombrg|contribs]]) 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I believe, with Cybercobra, and with the longstanding consensus of article editors, that mentioning Python's indentation block style should be mentioned in the lead. This feature is one of the most widely mentioned aspects of Python in other introductions and discussion of Python. While I entirely agree that the significance of this feature is often exaggerated–both pro and con–the fact it is so frequently mentioned in 3rd party sources makes it notable to readers of the article.
:strombrg: No one's saying it shouldn't be mentioned, and in fact it is mentioned (again, as if once isn't enough) later in the article. I'm just saying it shouldn't be in a "you only get one first impression" spot where newcomers are more likely to be driven away by it - this in combination with the previous "claims to be powerful" stuff read like it was written by someone who hated the language. Please see http://www.se-radio.net/podcast/2006-02/episode-4-scripting-languages for a typical example of how whitespace for block scoping is misperceived outside the python community. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Strombrg|Strombrg]] ([[User talk:Strombrg|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strombrg|contribs]]) 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 50:
* Rounding to the nearest smaller integer is floor semantics, not "floor and ceiling".
* Floor and ceiling are simply utility functions, not any sort of "mathematical law". Both of them -- along with the "nearest to zero" rounding performed by some other languages are equally valid mathematically (and to be strictly precise, '''none''' of them follow the generally accepted guidelines for mathematical rounding).
[[User:FellGleaming|<
:Hi Fell. I can see your point, but I'm not happy with the current wording. It seems to imply that Python is out of step with other languages (which it is), but that there is no basis with the decision for Python to floor towards -infinity (which is wrong - it's a clear decision, as your ref clearly shows).
Line 162:
Why does the sidebar say that it's a strong typed language? Duck and dynamic are right, but it's not strong. I'm going to remove this.
<
:Because it is? (see amongst [http://wiki.python.org/moin/Why%20is%20Python%20a%20dynamic%20language%20and%20also%20a%20strongly%20typed%20language this] for instance).--[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 00:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
:I think you are confusing strong and static. See our articles on them. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
== "general purpose" ==
What does "general purpose" mean in the lead here? What would be an example of a non-general purpose programming language? To me, the phrase "general purpose" implies that it's not tied to a specific situation but I think that is implicitly implied when you say "programming language" anyway. Perhaps there's a technical usage of the term I am unaware of. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 17:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
:"General purpose" as opposed to [[___domain-specific language|___domain-specific]] (e.g. [[R (programming language)]], whose use is generally limited to statistics). --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
== Influence by Java, Lisp or Perl ? ==
Line 174:
This three claims do not have any strong backing references. The "Java" thing is especially weird, because
Python was created 4 years *before* Java and I can't even name a single feature added later that would be similar to Java. Dunno about Perl. As for Lisp, we already say it's influenced by Haskell, which is influenced by Lisp - I don't think there was much direct influence. I propose removing all three if no one can come up with citations. [[User:Lrekucki|Lrekucki]] ([[User talk:Lrekucki|talk]]) 07:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:The syntax for decorators, and the <tt>logging</tt> std lib module take direct inspiration from Java. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::Agreed about the decorators, but I don't think logging (or unittest based directly on JUnit or any other stdlib module) should be treated as an influence to Python (the language). [[User:Lrekucki|Lrekucki]] ([[User talk:Lrekucki|talk]]) 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:With Perl, it's basically an "anti-influence". Python in part define(d) itself in contrast to Perl; see 3rd-to-last paragraph of [[Python_(programming_language)#Programming_philosophy|''Programming philosophy'']]. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
:: This is a bit confusing. Any standard way to mark this as "anti-influence" as you called it ? [[User:Lrekucki|Lrekucki]] ([[User talk:Lrekucki|talk]]) 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, are there any rules for marking major influences (like marking them as bold) ? [[User:Lrekucki|Lrekucki]] ([[User talk:Lrekucki|talk]]) 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:Nope. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
== Everything is remarkable ==
Line 190:
This "remarkable power..." quote is pure POV puff and should be removed. [[User:Derek farn|Derek farn]] ([[User talk:Derek farn|talk]]) 14:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
:Python is generally known for having a comparatively "clean" syntax. The description is from the official FAQ, not some random author, and is appropriately qualified ("claims to", as opposed to a factual "is" statement). "Power" as in being [[high-level programming language|high-level]] (compared to e.g. [[C (programming language)|C]]; it's a [[scripting language]]); do you have a suggestion for a better description for this aspect? --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::Who is the "generally known"? Has there been a poll of users of different languages? You are now saying Python has "clean syntax" the quote calls it "clear syntax", can you tell me how to measure the cleanness and clearness of a language syntax?
Line 219:
:::[[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 21:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't see much value in this because only the Python designers really know what "remarkable power" is supposed to refer to. You already said that your interpretation was just a guess.--[[User:Marko Knoebl|Marko Knoebl]] ([[User talk:Marko Knoebl|talk]]) 14:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I see no such ambiguity; all 3 phrasings refer to the same property, AIUI. I do admit that it's hard to find a definitive name for the property, though "high-level" seems fairly well accepted. I concur with Peter that we just need to properly attribute the source. Would striking or replacing the "remarkable" qualifier satisfy your concerns? --[[User:Cybercobra|<b
::::Although I do like the whole quote as that what Python (i.e its designers) say about it.
Line 400:
Hi. I'd like to interrupt and show this example.
<
class duck:
def quack(self):
Line 422:
except:
print("A %s cannot quack." % i.__class__.__name__)
</syntaxhighlight>
output:
Line 450:
Pythonics find solutions without Java three times faster with Python.
Non-Pythonics can't write Pythonic. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wiki lofi|Wiki lofi]] ([[User talk:Wiki lofi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wiki lofi|contribs]]) 07:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[Python (programming language)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678093903 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for https://www.python.org/dev/intro/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140423121309/http://www.jasc.com/support/customercare/articles/psp9components.asp to http://www.jasc.com/support/customercare/articles/psp9components.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101045354/http://wiki.python.org:80/moin/PythonForArtificialIntelligence to https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonForArtificialIntelligence
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 10:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
== There is no word about the best GUI builder: Qt_Designer. Why? ==
I had been struggling for years with terrible Tkinter, wxPython, BOA, Glide, etc. until I discovered [[PyQt]] with its fantastic VISUAL [[Qt_Designer]], which is free software. [[Special:Contributions/85.193.214.150|85.193.214.150]] ([[User talk:85.193.214.150|talk]]) 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:If you can come up with a reliable, third-party reference (or two) stating this, then feel free to add it in. Although I would say terms like 'the best' and 'terrible' and 'fantastic' are quite subjective. There are also issues around licensing: PyQT has GPL but not LGPL, which may affect some uses/users.
: [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 09:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
| |||