Jump to content

Talk:Python (programming language)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articlePython (programming language) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 7, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 3, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 9, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA reassessment[edit]

Python (programming language)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No improvemnent, so delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2007 listing of a still in-use programming language; no surprise that huge amounts of material is unsourced, violating GA criterion 2. I also feel that too much detail is being paid to the syntax of the language, possibly violating criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above for further issues. No harm in starting the reassessment now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: can you notify the major contributors, reviewers and initial nominator? Pings may be missed, and I only pinged those with over 5% authorship. Feel free to remove this comment afterwards. Femke (alt) (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive, Comp.arch, Thumperward, and Akeosnhaoe:
Perhaps @Peterl, Gadfium, TJRC, MrOllie, and Peaceray: too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Femke (alt), this article annoyingly dates to before the days of nominator/reviewer.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a major contributor to this article, I just ran a couple of bots on it. Abductive (reasoning) 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023[edit]

Update latest beta release version - Python 3.12 0rc1 has been released (2023-08-06) 86.130.253.139 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already done via Wikidata —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What platforms can run Python applications?[edit]

It would be good to know on what platforms and version Python can run on in a table, eg Windows, macOS, linux, iOS, Android, ... The table would probably need an explanation of any specific tools needed (frameworks, compilers). Also whether packaged packaged apps can be built that can be distributed (eg app store) to users without users requiring anything else to be installed.

An explanation of how features unique to each platform can be accessed would be useful. FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change[edit]

This page should mention that programming languages like Python that are not compiled into native executable code (e.g., they are interpreted or compiled into byte code that is run in a virtual machine) require more processor cycles for the same results compared to native executables. Therefore they use more power to execute, and they contribute more to climate change. Given the ubiquity of Python, a vast amount of power is wasted on interpretation or byte-code execution. 209.145.84.194 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source which describes this? The correlation between interpreted languages and climate change is not something I have seen described before. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this mentioned before (don't have any immediate links) and it probably has some validity. But, I agree with Panamitsu that to actually include this we need good sources (I think more than one unless it's a really solid one) that discuss this and do a pretty complete analysis. Since this isn't unique to Python and there are other tradeoffs beyond just how the final applications are run. Skynxnex (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a few reliable sources which suggest that Python does indeed use much more energy for the same tasks when compared with compiled languages like C.[1][2][3] However, I find no studies examining a link with climate change. This could be because demonstrating such causality would, I imagine, be very difficult. I do wonder what the impact of language choice is, though, relative to e.g. the total power draw of all electronics in a country—it might be an interesting exercise to estimate how many GW (or perhaps only MW?) could be saved in your country by rewriting all Python programs in C. — Jumbo T (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if true that interpreted or VM run Bytecode compiled languages require more processor cycles, then the proper place for that discussion would be on the pages for those execution environments rather than on specific languages pages. I would also like to see the citations for that. But creating a link to climate change is an additional leap that again would require evidence. It's quite possible that despite requiring more processor cycles to run similar code there are other features that make it more efficient in practice, or even that python is a more amenable language for the creation of control systems for products that combat or mitigate against climate change - to be clear, that is a hypothesis without evidence but it does caution against a simplistic narrative: Python -> Byte code -> more cycles -> worse for environment. Chris (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Abdulsalam, Sarah; Lakomski, Donna; Gu, Qijun; Jin, Tongdan; Zong, Ziliang (November 2014). "Program energy efficiency: The impact of language, compiler and implementation choices". International Green Computing Conference: 1–6. doi:10.1109/IGCC.2014.7039169.
  2. ^ Pereira, Rui; Couto, Marco; Ribeiro, Francisco; Rua, Rui; Cunha, Jácome; Fernandes, João Paulo; Saraiva, João (May 2021). "Ranking programming languages by energy efficiency". Science of Computer Programming. 205: 102609. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2021.102609.
  3. ^ Koedijk, Lukas; Oprescu, Ana (June 2022). "Finding Significant Differences in the Energy Consumption when Comparing Programming Languages and Programs". 2022 International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S): 1–12. doi:10.1109/ICT4S55073.2022.00012.

Naming[edit]

Python is named so, because the (long) code of the language looks like a snake/python. 49.37.96.186 (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You have not provided verification from a reliable source for this claim. This appears to be original research. Peaceray (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Python_(programming_language)&oldid=1231640959"