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

Revision as of 07:00, 17 June 2014

Revision as of 00:03, 25 October 2014

Line 291:

[[Special:Contributions/2A01:170:1078:1:0:0:0:10AA|2A01:170:1078:1:0:0:0:10AA]] ([[User talk:2A01:170:1078:1:0:0:0:10AA|talk]]) 04:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:First public release on alt.sources (v 0.9.0): Feb 20, 1991[http://python-history.blogspot.nl/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.html] according to Guido van Rossom. What is the dispute? --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 05:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

== "Third most popular language not based on C" - relevance ==

Recently the following sentence was added to the lead section and to the section ''Use'':

:"Python is the third most popular programming language whose [[Syntax (programming languages)|grammatical syntax]] is not predominantly based on [[C (programming language)|C]]"

Personally I think that this fact is not relevant enough to be included in the article. There are probably more important facts about Python's popularity (e.g. according to TIOBE it's the second most popular dynamic language - I think this is much more relevant). Furthermore the [[TIOBE index]] and its methods of ranking have been criticised (see article) and there are other rankings that put Python in a different place. I will remove the sentence from the lead section now and I would also like to remove it from the article body. If you disagree, let's discuss it here. --[[User:Marko Knoebl|Marko Knoebl]] ([[User talk:Marko Knoebl|talk]]) 18:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Python's popularity is an important piece of information to give the reader a sense of the language being described. There are hundreds (thousands?) of computer programming languages. Why should the reader care about Python? A big factor is its popularity -- that's a major reason why the reader should continue beyond the introduction. The TIOBE index might not be perfect, but why throw it out? Identifying Python as the second most popular dynamic language would work too. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.248.237.50|98.248.237.50]] ([[User talk:98.248.237.50|talk]]) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I think popularity is relevant, and would like something about it in the lead section. It's a significant aspect about Python. [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

:I've added 'popular' to the lead sentence. While this doesn't give complete coverage of the popularity, I think (and the above para notes) it's an important 'feature' or characteristic of Python. [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 00:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. I definitely agree that Python's popularity is important and should be mentioned in this article. My concern was only that the description of Python as the "third most popular programming language whose syntax is not predominantly based on C" was too specific. I think Peterl solved this nicely with his edits to the lead section by stating that "Python is a popular [...] programming language". I think we can keep the introduction this way. Is that OK?

Concerning the remaining sentence in the article body: What about writing it less specifically here as well? What about stating: "Python is one of the most popular programming languages not predominantly based on C"? That statement is much easier to prove by multiple sources and won't change over time. (According to the TIOBE index Python was not third in February 2013 - it was second, and has remained very close to number two ever since) Anyways I still think that the criterion "not predominantly based on C" is not that relevant and I'd rather prefer the sentence "Python is one of the most popular dynamic langages." -[[User:Marko Knoebl|Marko Knoebl]] ([[User talk:Marko Knoebl|talk]]) 17:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

== Describing Python as Strongly typed is ambigious ==

I think calling a language "weakly typed" or "strongly typed" is a poor and ambiguous description. Strong typing can mean a language is statically typed, has type safety or both depending on the context. In this case only type safety and not the static typing applies. The fact that one could say both C++ and Python are strongly typed when meaning completely different things (dynamic typing plus type safety, vs static typing plus type unsafety) makes this a very poor term that should be avoided in my opinion. Additionally, as the [[Strong and weak typing]] article describes, these are often not objective terms and mostly used when criticizing or advocating a particular language. I would advocate changing the type system description from strongly typed to safely typed.

Along the same lines, I think the line

<blockquote>Despite being dynamically typed, Python is strongly typed, forbidding operations that are not well-defined (for example, adding a number to a string) rather than silently attempting to make sense of them.</blockquote> should be rewritten or removed. The argument that not allowing using the <code>+</code> operator on numbers and strings means a type system is strong is a straw man. I can create a class in Python that does absurd things with the <code>+</code> operator but that does not mean the type system is any stronger or weaker. It simply means I have the freedom to overload that operator however I choose, and that the language designers had the good sense not to overload the <code>+</code> operator for numbers and strings (or not to add an implicit conversion from numbers to strings).

[[User:Nali4Freedom|Nali4Freedom]] ([[User talk:Nali4Freedom|talk]]) 19:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

:I agree: I think both should be changed. --[[User:Marko Knoebl|Marko Knoebl]] ([[User talk:Marko Knoebl|talk]]) 10:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)