Python Standardization: Wikipedia entry

[Paddy]

On Jan 28, 4:44 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, Roy Smith <r... at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <be24511b-f769-44bc-8214-b22015a5e... at y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >  ajaksu <aja... 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.
>
> I agree. As far as I know, Python is not formally
> "standardized" by any recognized standards
> authority such as ANSI or ISO. (If it were, it
> wouldn't have a "BDFL.")
>
> For most domains in which Python is used, that is
> not an issue, but for some potential uses it could
> be (e.g., safety-critical).
>
> FWIW, the "most" standardized language is probably
> Ada. Not only does it have a formal written
> standard, but I believe it also has a formal
> suite of tests that a standard Ada compiler is
> required to pass. [For some reason, Ada does not
> get the respect or the attention it deserves, but
> that's another topic.]

Thanks Roy, Russ. I agree that Python is not standardized the way
other languages are.
But still, I look at the table, read the article linked as the column
header, and can see that their is discrepancy.
The column header links to the article on standardization:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization
Which has a definition of standardization which is very different from
what you may cite.

I read the column headings article and just can't help feeling that
Python conforms to *that* definition.

- Paddy.