Talk:Python (programming language)/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:44, 26 September 2008

Revision as of 03:04, 8 October 2008

Line 238:

:Does it carry much encyclopedic value? What does it tell us about the language that the [[Python language#Programming philosophy|philosophy section]] doesn't cover? [[User:Hithereimdan|hithereimdan]] ([[User talk:Hithereimdan|talk]]) 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

== "more-accurate, consensus, well-cited" ==

Hi,

I don't think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Python_%28programming_language%29&diff=220249659&oldid=220231258 this revert] is appropriate, especially given the rationale.

# "More accurate" is pretty obviously disputable, from a five-second appraisal of the descriptions of the relevant terms. Python isn't ___domain-specific, which is an important aspect of VHLPLs.

# Claiming consensus on a change which was apparently never discussed (there's nothing regarding it on talk since the change was made) puts a rather excessive amount of weight on the status quo. I'd argue that if this is your criterion for consensus then it lies the other way, given that until said change the article sat the other way for years.

# It's cited to a single book, which incidentally is ''also'' the single source for the claim that "Some high-level programming languages such as Python, Ruby, and Scheme are often considered to be VHLL" on [[very high-level programming language]], and doesn't even give a page number. I assume the "well" part here applies to it being an O'Reilly, but we've had problems with that before - some guy spent weeks reverting people who objected to the obviously incorrect assertion that [[PHP]] was copyrighted to the Apache project, based on an O'Reilly which made that claim.

Given that it isn't disputed that Python is high-level, but it ''is'' disputed that it's very high-level, I reckon we should just use high-level. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 11:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

:If you look at the general usage of VHLL, it's really not the same thing as 5GL, as your "___domain-specific" comment suggests. I.e. look at:

:* http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/vhll/index.html

:* http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/vhll_1299.html

:Since you're proposing a controversial change to the lead (that seems wrong to me, a long-standing editor of that article), please bring it up on discussion for the article rather than just make the change). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris that it should be ''high-level programming language'' rather than ''very high-level programming language''. Martinelli's work is an excellent Python reference, and I don't detract from it. But Martinelli is a known Python advocate, and advocacy is not an objective of a Wikipedia article. There's no question that Python is high-level, but "very high-level" is getting more into areas of opinion.

Lulu, your work on this article is appreciated, but being a long-standing editor does not bestow any particular weight to your views. I know you're very protective of this article, but this might be a good time for you to re-read [[WP:OWN]]. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:I was well-familiar with the term VHLL (which precisely matches Python, as well as some "similar languages" like Ruby, Rebol, Perl, xBase, probably Scheme) long before I ever knew Martelli; the citation to him is a perfectly good one, but only inasmuch as it supports a widely understood nomenclature (as it does). This has nothing to do with advocacy—I certainly don't believe a VHLL is generically ''better'' than a HLL—it's simply about stating a more accurate, neutral fact.

:FWIW, being a long-standing editor actually ''is'' rather important in evaluating opinions on article changes. Likewise it's of some significance that I'm an actual subject-area expert here as well. Of course I don't [[WP:OWN]] the article, but perhaps you ought to pay a bit of attention to the fact that ''I do know'' what I'm talking about (or read the couple other references I link above, for example). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'''Solution: extend the [[Very high-level programming language|VHLL]] article?'''

Since the current VHLL article on Wikipedia is a stub (and the ACM articles require a subscription), it would be a great help if you experts ([[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|David ]], [[user:thumperward|Chris]] and [[User:TJRC|TJRC]]) could work together to get it into a generally useful state, e.g. so that non-expert software development readers can appreciate the criteria that distinguish VHLLs, HLLs, 4GLs etc. Once that groundwork is in place, it might be appropriate to add sub-sections to show why Python, Ruby &c should be regarded as VHLLs. Any debate could then take place on the VHLL talk page, which would provide a better context for the discussion. Does that work for you? - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

:It does. Admonition acknowledged, [[VHLL]] is very stubby, and I ''am'' someone who should make it better. Time and attention :-). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 07:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

== Slackware Anaconda? ==

In the Usage section, this is said:

:Slackware, Red Hat Linux and Fedora use the pythonic Anaconda.

AFAIK, as a long-time Slackware user, Slackware does not use Anaconda. However, not being a Slackware guru, I'm uncomfortable with taking definitive action over this matter. I mean, it would take some work to merge Anaconda into Slackware to make this statement true :D

But seriously, if nobody disagrees within a couple days or so, I guess I'll remove Slackware from that list.--[[User:I80and|I80and]] ([[User talk:I80and|talk]]) 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)