Content deleted Content added
m Task 70: Update syntaxhighlight tags - remove use of deprecated <source> tags |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 89:
Thanks --[[user:jhylton|Jeremy Hylton]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I participated in those discussions as well. SETL was mentioned, but very passingly as an aside; Haskell was the direct inspiration for the syntax and usage. In any case, whatever the factual answer, it needs to be documented and cited... WP isn't aiming at ''true'', it's aiming at ''verifiable'' (many new editors miss this important distinction). If some PEP mentiones SETL, great. Or if you have some statement by the BDFL to this effect (or by some other core developer involved in implementing the feature). Give a concrete citation for the (slightly) controversial claim you wish to add.
::A quotation from http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonVsHaskell, which may be considered an authoritative source in this context:
Line 101:
:::We had been interested in the list comprehensions idea for a while. The email thread on python-dev was about syntax for a feature already in the works. At that point, knowing the Haskell and SETL had both used it successfully was encouraging. Other languages used the same basic feature with this syntax. I recall downloading the SETL docs to take a look. The reason Haskell seems to have entered history as *the* influence is that it is the most modern language that has a similar syntax.--[[User talk:Jhylton|Jhylton]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 03:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The main point, in my mind, of mentioning Haskell as an influence is more about its influence on ''itertools'' than on listcomps. Raymond Hettinger explicitly studied the Haskell prologue to evaluate which itertools were important to support. But perhaps we do not mention Haskell's influence in the best way or context (let me go look again).
:The text in the history section talks about list comprehensions rather than itertools.--[[Special:Contributions/72.14.228.89|72.14.228.89]] ([[User talk:72.14.228.89|talk]]) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Line 120:
>>> id(s)
3792320
:This might be a tricky concept for users coming from some languages, such as C. Maybe we can come up with a way to cover it. The poster above appears to have confused "immutable" with "constant" (as in C ''const'' variables). --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] ([[User talk:Fubar Obfusco|talk]]) 07:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Line 138:
(3792384, 3792352, 3792352)
:At least in CPython, the id of an object is its memory address, not the hash of a string. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik Johansson]] 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Line 163:
(25180820, 25180796)
::If you do the same thing about reversing the order of assigning strings, you don't get consistent ids. In any case, whatever the assignment of ids, it's an implementation accident, and not part of the actual semantics of Python.
-----
Line 255:
:* 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).
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.
Line 263:
: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).
'''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 :-).
== Slackware Anaconda? ==
Line 314:
:But even so, its use as a scripting language is important. For a time, some users of compiled languages tried to dismiss languages such as Python as 'merely scripting' languages in a sort of pejorative fashion. I don't think we should play down this functionality because of that. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 21:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Something like "Python has been successfully embedded in a number of software products as a scripting language"?
:::I think LotLE is going in the right direction. Some languages are "scriptable" (i.e. "can be used for efficient scripting"), and others can't. Ideally the various language articles would just say "Xxxx can be used as a [[Scripting language]]", and the [[Scripting language]] article would make it clear what this means. Right now the scripting language article is all over the place, Python and Ruby aren't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, Javascript and ECMAscript are used as interchangeable terms and—unless you think the statement "Writing in C is much more difficult than writing in the scripting languages." tells the full story—there's no direct explanation of why "systems languages" are not always the ideal tool. I'll take a proper look at it tomorrow - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::You might have missed my very discreet smiley. The above quote is already in the article, and has been for a long while. However, I also added a short sentence to the lead that I think makes the association w/o being quite as forced as the earlier change. That said, I just read the [[scripting language]] article too; I agree that that one is a real mess.
:::::I was mainly thinking about [[User:Fubar Obfusco|Fubar Obfusco's]] "false dichotomy" point - it would be good if s/he would take a look at [[scripting language]] too (I suspect you two are more polyglottal than I am). - [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] ([[User talk:Pointillist|talk]]) 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| |||