Talk:Python (programming language)

Interpreted vs compiled

I'm not a python expert but I think it should be pointed out that the statement "Python is [...] interpreted high-level programming language" at the beginning of the article is at least misleading...and at most wrong. As it is explained here and here, in the reference implementation a Python program is compiled into bytecode --Millsabord (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the term interpreted is not well-defined. However I think Python definitely qualifies for all modern definitions of interpreted. As explained in Interpreter (computing), direct execution of source code is very rare. As far as I know no modern programming language uses this technique anymore. So excluding Python from the group of interpreted languages would basically mean that there are no interpreted languages at all. Anyhow I'm not strongly opposed to removing it as the term is definitely ambiguous.--91.114.185.145 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Carbo1200 I see my remark has been taken into account, thanks --195.13.33.18 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

History wrong

On this page, it is said in the right hand box, that Python "appears" in 1991. On this other page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Python , it is noted that Python 2.0 was released 16 October 2000 (quote from that page), but there have been releases 1.5 and 1.3, at least (I have a book about Python version 1.5). Therefore, I dispute the stated date. But I don't know the correct date, or otherwise, I would have corrected it. 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[1] according to Guido van Rossom. What is the dispute? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Object-oriented vs. Object-orientation

Is this correct?

Python supports multiple programming paradigms, including object-oriented, imperative and functional programming styles. (emphasis mine)

I think it should say "object-orientation", not "object-oriented". I have made this adjustment before and it was changed back. Am I in the wrong here?

EDIT: Boy I feel stupid. I did not read the full sentence. I'm sorry for wasting your time.

"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 grammatical syntax is not predominantly based on 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. --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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.237.50 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think popularity is relevant, and would like something about it in the lead section. It's a significant aspect about Python. 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. 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." -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

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.

should be rewritten or removed. The argument that not allowing using the + 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 + 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 + operator for numbers and strings (or not to add an implicit conversion from numbers to strings).

Nali4Freedom (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Bullet point list of Uses/Applications

I think it would be easier to read the section entitled "Use" if it included a bullet pointed list. Here's a start:

• Scientific computing (NumPy, SciPy, Sage, etc.)
• web dev (Django, etc.)
• admin scripting (Salt, bcfg2, OpenStack)
• game scripting (Civilization 4, etc.)
• 3D applications (Blender, etc.)
• Linux applications (nearly everything in Ubuntu)
• Largescale web development (e.g. Instagram which is Django, Disqus, Quora)
• Game creation (Eve Online, etc.)
• Neuroscience.
• Bioinformatics
• Crossplatform GUI applications
• Robotics (Pyro, etc.)
• Raspberry Pi

FYI, the starting point for this list is in this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/1k74jb/ruby_vs_python/ . There's more good information there on the topic. Perhaps the Use section could even be split in two: "Use" and "Applications," where the Use section discusses the language's popularity generally, while the Applications section has a bullet list like this. Others are welcome to revise/incorporate this comment as they like. Thanks. 107.3.156.34 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure what order those topics should be in, though. peterl (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is not reddit - it is an encyclopedia. The MOS says articles should be primary prose. meshach (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that articles should be primarily readable as prose, but there are plenty of examples in Wikipedia of bullet lists being used appropriately within that context. Indeed, this Python article already has ten such bullet lists :), and I would not be supportive of removing them. They're quite helpful for the reader. I'd suggest adding some "meat" to each bullet list that isn't otherwise self-descriptive. 107.3.156.34 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)