Hacker News Reader

Comment by vkazanov | Hacker News Reader

Just to name alternatives: Cpython, Pypy, jython, ironpython.

Then, there quite a few python-likes out there.

I wish they would stay precise.

Yes, but no one is ever talking about pypy or jython implicitly. They are always mentioned by name because they represent <0.1% of all Python usage and are relegated essentially exclusively to niche or experimental use cases for power users.

It’s a bit like arguing people should start saying “homo sapiens” when referencing “people” for added precision. It may be useful to anthropologists but the rest of us really don’t need that. Similarly, CPython is really only a sensible level of precision in a discussion directly about alternative Python implementations.

(although in this case the original post is about implementation internals so I’d give it a pass)

This seems to be literally looking at the details of the C implementation of a Python interpreter. Exactly specifying the implementation makes sense here. You wouldn't say "how does the C++ compiler work" then look only at gcc.

c++ / g++ is not comparable because the original c++ reference compilers are not commercially popular today. No one is using Strouvestroups compilers.

CPython is Python. Every time your buddy says “just download python” you are using CPython . There’s no reason to be pedantic.

If you know enough about Python to look at how the dict is implemented, you also know the difference between Python and CPython. It's not a beginners intro.

g++ and clang are comparable. You need to specify the implementation.

I like this debate because it triggers everyone’s pragmatic frustration with the philosophy of language.

Are things defined by the dictionary or by everyday experiences?

Also: https://micropython.org/

Another great example that no one would confuse for python.

CPython, pypy, jython are not alternatives.

CPython is Python. The others are attempts.

I don’t think it’s good form to downvote people you disagree with.

I did not downvote, but I'm guessing that it is perceived as disrespectful to call them failures to the point where they don't even qualify as "alternatives".

The word "failure" was never used.

But, they are technically correct. The language is defined as by CPython: it is the standard!!! None of the others fully meet that standard, which includes quirks! It's knows trade offs with them! They are, literally, attempts to adhere to that standard.

It’s no slight to jython. They fill an important Niche. But jython will never ever be confused with python.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com