Python Standardization: Wikipedia entry

[Roy Smith]

In article 
<be24511b-f769-44bc-8214-b22015a5e07e at y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
 ajaksu <ajaksu at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 27, 10:32 pm, Paddy <paddy3... at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
> > contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
> > Specifically in the context of this table:
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages#Gene...
> >   (Comparison of programming languages)
> > And this entry in the talk page
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming_languages...
> >   (Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)
> >
> > - Thanks.
> 
> Hmmm. Seems to me that "Is X Standardized" in the given context means
> having a formal, published standard issued by some Standards
> organization.

That's exactly what it means.  For example, if I'm buying a C++ compiler, I 
can specify in the contract, "Must comply with ISO 14882", and everybody 
will know what I'm talking about.

On the other side of the fence, if I'm a free-lance C++ developer, I can 
specify to my customers that the code I write will work properly when 
compiled with a compiler that meets ISO 14882.  Whether such a compiler 
actually exists, is besides the point :-)

Python has no such standard.  Sure, there's the stuff on docs.python.org, 
but it's kind of hard to write a contract which says, "Must comply with the 
stuff on docs.python.org", and have it be meaningful in a legal sense.

So, I think the "No" in the "Standardized?" column for python is exactly 
right.  That's not to say you can't have something good which isn't 
standardized.  Sometimes standards committees even go off into left field 
and field break stuff in the process of standardizing it.  Some things have 
so many different standards (i.e. the pletora of unix standards), it's 
almost worthless to say it's standardized.  But, as it stands, the 
Wikipedia article is correct.