Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
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 164:
<font color="#008888">[[User:Asmeurer|asmeurer]] ([[User talk:Asmeurer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Asmeurer|contribs]])</font> 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
: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.
| |||