Talk:Python (programming language)/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:42, 24 March 2011

Revision as of 13:34, 10 June 2011

Line 58:

::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)

== Language or software? ==

I don't think this article (nor indeed Python's official website) makes enough of a distinction between a language called Python and piece of software called Python. [[User:Balfa|Balfa]] ([[User talk:Balfa|talk]]) 13:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

:I think the problem lies with the Python user community in making too many assumptions about the non-cognoscenti's knowledge of the surreal British comedy series of the early 1970s, ''[[Monty Python's Flying Circus]]''. Until I edited it today, this article didn't even tell me if Python was a compiled language or an interpreted language. In fact, Python is the language, and the interpreter on which it runs is called IDLE, probably a reference to Eric Idle, one of the members of the Monty Python comedy troupe. The whole subject matter is rife with "inside jokes" and is bogged down in too much detail for a Wikipedia article. It needs a thorough enema.&mdash;[[User:Hydrargyrum|Quicksilver]]^{[[User_talk:Hydrargyrum|T]] [[Special:Emailuser/Hydrargyrum|@]]} 05:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::Oh no it doesn't --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 10:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::Hydrargyrum, you talk as if there is a clear distinction between interpreted and compiled. Pascal was called compiled when, for some time, an important "compiler" generated p-code that was then "interpreted". --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 10:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Oh yes it does, and yes there is. Pretend you've never heard of Python before and then read the article. See if you can make heads or tails of it by the time you reach the bottom. For an even better experience, read the version before I added material about its interpreted nature. See the Python Tutorial at http://docs.python.org/release/2.5.2/tut/node1.html. The authors of that page clearly state just a few sentences into the "Front Matter" that Python has an "interpreted nature". Now, why do you suppose they did that?<p>I'm not stupid; I've been programming in a number of different high-level and low-level computer languages since about 1970 and I fully realize that many computer languages can be run either in an interpreted or compiled environment. A classic example is Dartmouth BASIC: It was always a compiler in the beginning while under development at Dartmouth College, and when resource-poor minicomputers and microcomputers appeared, interpreter versions were created, such as PC-BASIC for the IBM PC. Anyone familiar with both flavors knows there are differences in the way the source code can be written and big differences in performance. When I encounter a new computer language, that's one of the ''crucial'' things I want to know right from the start.<p>People come to Wikipedia to get a quick overview of a subject with which they're unfamiliar; they don't come here to get an advanced degree. The articles should be written accordingly. Anything more should be left to "Further Reading" and references in the footnotes, or Wikibooks and Wikiversity.&mdash;[[User:Hydrargyrum|Quicksilver]]^{[[User_talk:Hydrargyrum|T]] [[Special:Emailuser/Hydrargyrum|@]]} 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Python is a language; there's a specification. However, there is also one ''primary'' implementation, also known as CPython. CPython is a bytecode-compiled implementation of the Python language. The two are closely connected, more so than with some languages (like C, Forth, or Common Lisp) but less so than with some others (like Perl). Most of the time, when someone says "Python" they could reasonably mean both the language and the primary implementation. If someone wants to refer to Jython or IronPython or CL-Python, they say so. This is all discussed [http://docs.python.org/py3k/reference/introduction.html in the specification itself] --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] ([[User talk:Fubar Obfusco|talk]]) 15:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

::::IDLE is not an interpreter, it is an IDE. [[User:InverseHypercube|InverseHypercube]] ([[User talk:InverseHypercube|talk]]) 08:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::And there are interpreters for the 'compiled' languages, such as the 'classic' compiled language, C. See [[Ch_interpreter#C.2FC.2B.2B_interpreter]]. There's a difference between the language (which has nothing to do with how it is implemented), and the implemenation (which could be compiled, interpreted, p-code, byte code or one of many other options.) How do you classify a language running under a JIT?

:::[[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 08:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

== Further reading ==

I think we need some guidance as to what should go into this section. It's starting to become a self-promtion list of any books about Python. What do others think? [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 05:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

: How about a 'List of books on Python (programming language)' page? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paddy3118|contribs]]) 08:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::That would be unusual - I don't think any other programming language has that. I don't think there's anything that wikipedia would be adding that isn't already covered elsewhere, such as [http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonBooks]. [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 09:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to prune severely under [[Wikipedia:Layout#Further_reading]], particularly "any book included should have received more than one good review in RS - newspapers and scholarly journals being the norm, and the clear balance of RS reviews should be positive." [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:Agreed, and thanks. We should not even list ''all'' books meeting the above criteria. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Least someone be left with an incorrect impression, there was no [[Wikipedia:COI#Self-promotion]] in my listing Hetland's Python book.

Peterl, I am assuming you were concerned that the list was getting out

of control and did not mean anything personal.

--[[User:Javaweb|Javaweb]] ([[User talk:Javaweb|talk]]) 03:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

I am new to the editing of articles, so maybe I am missing something obvious to others. The Further Reading section needed improvement, so I added a good book and organized the list. Later the book list was severely pruned, but I do not understand what qualifies the books that remain. Selected Wikipedia policy was duplicated in the Further Reading section, but it appears that the policy is not being followed. Could someone please explain what I am missing here, or show an example of the proper way to add a book. Thanks. [[User:Lance Albin|Lance Albin]] ([[User talk:Lance Albin|talk]]) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)