Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Python (programming language). |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Python (programming language). |
||
Line 35:
It could be valuable from a novice's point of view if the article mentioned that the software is free to download.
[[Special:Contributions/74.105.52.232|74.105.52.232]] ([[User talk:74.105.52.232|talk]]) 18:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
== Criticism ==
Can someone put a criticism section in? Python can't be totally free from criticism. --[[User:Volumebass112|Volumebass112]] ([[User talk:Volumebass112|talk]]) 12:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
: The problem with such things is sourcing. When they've been done in the past, even highly regarded industry commentators have been removed as "not being [[WP:RS]]", because they were recognised as experts in Java, Ruby or Perl etc., but not Python. To be [[WP:RS]] for Python itself, one's assumed to have to be drinking the Kool-aid and thus unlikely to criticise it.<p>As one of Python's obvious targets for criticism would be dynamic typing itself, we'd first need a WP article that managed to get an accurate description of dynamic typing in Python, something we don't currently have. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::To assume that one is favorably biased just because one has been using a product or service for a while is in and of itself being biased, and is no indicator whatsoever that the source is unreliable. There are products that I've been using for years with which I have a bone to pick, often because I've seen better 10 or 20 years ago and all that's available now is product "X" with numerous flaws and quirks. I'd be happy to accept a critical review any time under such conditions, especially if criticisms can be backed up with evidence. All too often I've found that experts on product "X" are blissfully unaware of shortcomings, because they've been working with "X" exclusively and don't realize that products "Y" and "Z" are much better. In such cases the criticisms of product "X" from experts on products "Y" and "Z" carry more weight.<p>The very style and content of the article as it now stands illustrates my point. I visited it several months ago to find out what Python was all about and came away just as ignorant as when I started. The article gets bogged down in minutiae from the very first sentence in the lead section and didn't even tell me if Python was run on an interpreter or a compiler. It just got worse from there. That's what you get when something is written by "recognised experts" or copied from the writings of such "experts". (I added a few words in the lead section earlier today in an attempt to alleviate this ''criticism''.)—[[User:Hydrargyrum|Quicksilver]]<sup>[[User_talk:Hydrargyrum|T]] [[Special:Emailuser/Hydrargyrum|@]]</sup> 05:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
== Python rounding ==
There have been a few attempts to insert phrasing such that Python follows "mathematical laws" or "floor and ceiling mathematical rules" on rounding. Most seem designed to simply promote Python over over languages, and suffer from some NPOV issues. However, there are substantially larger problems with these statements, which are:
* The claims are not properly cited.
* 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|<font color="darkmagenta"><b>F</b>ell <b>G</b>leaming</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]</sup> 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
: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).
:I agree with your NPOV statement, but I feel the current wording is not neutral either. How can we word it so that Python is shown to be different but considered, and relevant based on mathematics?
:PS: Excellent ref you found - well done.
:[[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 10:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
::Maybe could state something like 'The result of integer division rounds towards negative infinity. This maintains the validity of of the equation b*( a/b)+a%b = a for all integers a, and positive integers b, as Python's modulus operation a % b results in a number in the range [0,b), following usual mathematical convention.' That's pretty verbose, though, and may not draw enough attention to the a < 0 case. --[[User:Aflafla1|Aflafla1]] ([[User talk:Aflafla1|talk]]) 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
| |||