5 ms·

I never mentioned any advantage or disadvantage. I am only stating a fact about the current state of Python. Python does not have a specification or a standard

by Kranar 3y ago

I never mentioned any advantage or disadvantage. I am only stating a fact about the current state of Python. Python does not have a specification or a standards document, it has a reference that describes how Python happens to work and the reference is a great resource for people to familiarize themselves with the language but it should simply be clear that its purpose is to reflect the existing state of the language rather than to specify how Python works.

pdonis 3y ago
Then why are different implementations of Python all implementations of Python? What makes them implementations of Python rather than different languages? I've already given my answer: they all meet the language reference I linked to (yes, the word "reference" appears in its title, not "specification"; that's just another quibble). What is your answer?
- Kranar 3y ago
  Haha, no they don't all meet the language reference you linked to and if you used them you'd know that! Python is a lot more like LISP than it is C++. There are many flavors of Python, from MicroPython to GraalPython to Cyston and literally dozens of them. They most certainly do not all meet the language reference you linked to and they all have quirks here and there. A language does not need a specification in order to exist or to have a name. What matters is that people use it and get work done with it, and ultimately if looks like a Python and quacks like a Python, then it's fine to call it a Python.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
eesmith 3y ago
What then did you think it relevant to point out that Python does not have a prescriptive document if you didn't think it was somehow useful? Here's another fact: Python doesn't have its own typeface either. Yet that fact is hardly germane to the thread. A prescriptive document is a formal specification. The Python Language Reference is a less formal specification. It's still a specification. It is also not a single document, but then again even a formal specification may incorporate other specifications by reference.
- Kranar 3y ago
  Because the original comment was about the appropriateness of writing Python code according to the reference implementation as opposed to writing Python code strictly according to the reference document. Some people are arguing that the reference documentation is in some sense authoritative and the only resource that should be used to define Python's semantics. In particular the issue at hand is whether the GIL is a part of the semantics of a Python program. As my position is that the CPython implementation is the reference implementation for Python and as the GIL is an integral part of that implementation, then the GIL does form a part of Python's semantics regardless of whether the reference documentation mentions it or not. The Python reference documentation is not a specification and it's not intended to be one.

by Kranar 3y ago

pdonis 3y ago

Then why are different implementations of Python all implementations of Python? What makes them implementations of Python rather than different languages? I've already given my answer: they all meet the language reference I linked to (yes, the word "reference" appears in its title, not "specification"; that's just another quibble). What is your answer?

Kranar 3y ago
Haha, no they don't all meet the language reference you linked to and if you used them you'd know that! Python is a lot more like LISP than it is C++. There are many flavors of Python, from MicroPython to GraalPython to Cyston and literally dozens of them. They most certainly do not all meet the language reference you linked to and they all have quirks here and there. A language does not need a specification in order to exist or to have a name. What matters is that people use it and get work done with it, and ultimately if looks like a Python and quacks like a Python, then it's fine to call it a Python.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

eesmith 3y ago

What then did you think it relevant to point out that Python does not have a prescriptive document if you didn't think it was somehow useful? Here's another fact: Python doesn't have its own typeface either. Yet that fact is hardly germane to the thread. A prescriptive document is a formal specification. The Python Language Reference is a less formal specification. It's still a specification. It is also not a single document, but then again even a formal specification may incorporate other specifications by reference.

Kranar 3y ago
Because the original comment was about the appropriateness of writing Python code according to the reference implementation as opposed to writing Python code strictly according to the reference document. Some people are arguing that the reference documentation is in some sense authoritative and the only resource that should be used to define Python's semantics. In particular the issue at hand is whether the GIL is a part of the semantics of a Python program. As my position is that the CPython implementation is the reference implementation for Python and as the GIL is an integral part of that implementation, then the GIL does form a part of Python's semantics regardless of whether the reference documentation mentions it or not. The Python reference documentation is not a specification and it's not intended to be one.