Talk:Cython: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:37, 18 October 2011

Latest revision as of 09:58, 31 January 2024

(18 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WPFSWikiProject banner shell|class=C|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Computing |importance= |free-software=yes |free-software-importance=low |software=yes }}

}}

{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Cython:Talk 2011]]}}

== NotabilityPoint of View ==

I came to this page for useful information about how Cython works and what the benefits and tradeoffs are involved in using it. Instead I found an article that is overblown, biased, uses verbiage that is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and contains very little factual information about how Cython actually works. Biased, un-encyclopedic language includes phrases like: "The special advantage of this seamless Python/C intermix approach is that existing Python code can be tuned to almost the speed of C by just adding a few static type declarations".

This article appears to lack any reliable independent secondary sources as required by [[WP:GNG]], [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] and [[WP:RELIABLE]]. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cython&action=historysubmit&diff=427069378&oldid=422266327 hatted it] but the hat was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cython&action=historysubmit&diff=427560525&oldid=427560280 removed] by Qwertyus, citing ''"Van Rossum, Ewing and scikits-learn; also 2-column reflist"'' in his edit summary. But the [http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109634.html Van Rossum] and and [http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109642.html Ewing] articles are merely posts to a mailing list and [http://scikit-learn.sourceforge.net/ scikit-learn] isn't even a source, it's another machine-learning tool for Python. That's nowhere near satisfying the requirements in [[WP:RELIABLE]] that the sources be '''''"reliable, published sources"''''' (emphasis in the original) and that ''"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."'' [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

:That's not a reason to remove the article, it's a reason to improve the sources. I've replaced {{tl|notability}} with {{tl|primary sources}}. If you do want to argue importance, it's a well-established project used by thousands of programmers. [[User:Gracefool|··gracefool]][[User talk:gracefool|☺]] 13:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[[User:Stefan.karpinski|Stefan Karpinski]] ([[User talk:Stefan.karpinski|talk]]) 07:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

::The notability tag should remain. Notability has nothing to do with how many thousands of programmers use this product. If none of them ever writes about it, it doesn't clear the hurdle for notability, which is all and only about '''what other people say''' in reliable sources as explained in the guidelines sections I cited. So far as I can see from the sources provided, the only people who write about Cython are the people who created it. Sorry. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 13:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

:::I thinkshould thisadd hasthat basicallyCython changedis now*clearly* notable. I see lots of references from different sources[[User:Stefan.karpinski|Stefan Karpinski]] ([[User talk:ScoderStefan.karpinski|Scodertalk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 0807:3603, 1817 OctoberJuly 20112012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I've cleaned up some of the material and removed the sign. This article could still use some TLC but at least visitors will have a basic idea of the workflow. [[User:DavidBrooksPokorny|DavidBrooksPokorny]] ([[User talk:DavidBrooksPokorny|talk]]) 09:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

== External files ==

Hello world chart: http://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/50a0bbdb-78a8-4950-b49e-248f0a7cd169 and http://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/50a0bcf5-eb94-4a05-98d8-5b9b0a7c4e7c <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DavidBrooksPokorny|DavidBrooksPokorny]] ([[User talk:DavidBrooksPokorny|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DavidBrooksPokorny|contribs]]) 09:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Not a Superset ==

I don't know when it diverged, but Cython is pretty far away from being a superset of python 3 at least since the introduction of type hints.

Valid type-hinted Python will often fail to compile, and some other changes in syntax have not been added yet.

In the docs, cython only says it "It aims to become a superset of the [Python] language".

The first sentence should be tempered somewhat at least. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/148.88.152.95|148.88.152.95]] ([[User talk:148.88.152.95#top|talk]]) 17:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I've changed it to '''subset'''. [[User: Arjun G. Menon|'''<font color="#FF8C00">Arjun</font> G. <font color="#008000">Menon</font>''']] ([[User_talk: Arjun G. Menon|'''''<font color="#654321">talk</font>''''']] '''·''' [[Special:EmailUser/Arjun G. Menon|mail]]) 01:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

== It's not language ==

Cython isn't even a programming language. I think someone here should read a little more at cython.org. [[User:Mr.Fine24|Mr.Fine24]] ([[User talk:Mr.Fine24|talk]]) 16:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)