4 ms·
It's the current W3C view of standards. Also * of course we have multiple implementations of python: CPython, PyPy, IronPython... * Python isn't a W3C standar
by sid0 16y ago
It's the current W3C view of standards. Also
* of course we have multiple implementations of python: CPython, PyPy, IronPython...
* Python isn't a W3C standard, nor does it aim to be one.
- wmf 16y agoMaybe W3C should change, rather than remaining stuck in the early 90s.
- sid0 16y agoWell, I think having two implementations is necessary for a "standard" to actually truly be one, because if there's just one then you might as well be standardizing on the implementation rather than on the spec. I don't agree with standardizing on implementations in principle.
- Groxx 16y agoHardly. An API can exist entirely without implementation, and pulling an API from an implementation doesn't need to expose any details of the implementation. That's kind of the point of an API - it's an abstraction. And what are the specs, if not APIs? Not standardizing on an implementation: makes sense. Refusing to standardize on an API until there are two+ implementations: ?
- wmf 16y agoRefusing to standardize on an API until there are two+ implementations: ? There are good reasons for this, like uncovering undocumented-but-essential behavior. I think if you are going to standardize an API you should have two implementations, but I also think it's reasonable to standardize a single implementation as long as it is licensed so that everyone can use it (e.g. SQLite).