This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Title: doc Mention relevant pythonesque implementations
Type: enhancement Stage: resolved
Components: Documentation Versions: Python 3.8, Python 3.7, Python 3.6
Status: closed Resolution: rejected
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: docs@python Nosy List: Mariatta, adelfino, docs@python, petr.viktorin, rhettinger, willingc
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2018-06-16 03:15 by adelfino, last changed 2022-04-11 14:59 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Pull Requests
URL Status Linked Edit
PR 7741 closed adelfino, 2018-06-16 03:17
Messages (11)
msg319700 - (view) Author: Andrés Delfino (adelfino) * (Python triager) Date: 2018-06-16 03:15
IMHO, mentioning MicroPython is a plus because it's a mature project with a focus not covered by any of the other mentioned implementations.

PR adds the mention.
msg319705 - (view) Author: Carol Willing (willingc) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-06-16 03:45
A reasonable suggestion. Let's make sure that we mention CircuitPython as well.
msg319726 - (view) Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-06-16 07:40
IIRC, Guido recognized only PyPy, Jython, and IronPython as alternate conforming implementations.   A number of other projects were python-like but were also going off in their own directions not subject to his pronouncements.

MicroPython is a pretty cool project but I don't think that its goal is for most code written for CPython would run on MicroPython or vice-versa.

That said, somewhere in the docs (a FAQ entry) there should be a list some of pythonesque implementation like MicroPython, CircuitPython, CPython, VPython, etc.

IMO, the Language Reference is the wrong place.  That document (which used to be subtitled "for language lawyers only") is intended to be the most precise and offical specification of the Python language.  It doesn't make sense to reference implementations that don't follow the specification.
msg319727 - (view) Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-06-16 07:43
Addenda:  Somewhere in the annals of our history this was discussed before (perhaps dating back to Stackless Python).
msg319738 - (view) Author: Andrés Delfino (adelfino) * (Python triager) Date: 2018-06-16 13:36
Sorry, I didn't knew that :) I'll update the PR adding an entry in the FAQ.

With "CPython" in "pythonesque implementation like MicroPython, CircuitPython, CPython" did you mean Cython?
msg319739 - (view) Author: Carol Willing (willingc) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-06-16 14:24
Thanks Raymond :-)

The FAQ seems like a good place to share. Cython would be a nice addition and perhaps IPython too.
msg319758 - (view) Author: Andrés Delfino (adelfino) * (Python triager) Date: 2018-06-16 16:10
What do you think about also mentioning Skulpt and Brython? On one hand, they -like MicroPython/CirtcuitPython- cover a focus no other implementation does (and a special one: client side Web scripting); but on the other hand, we shouldn't make space for everybody to add her/his pythonesque implementation.
msg319759 - (view) Author: Carol Willing (willingc) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-06-16 16:16
I think your suggestion for Brython and Skulpt is excellent. I believe that it's important to point out that Python can be used client-side, and both your suggestions have been around for a while, are stable, and often used in large courses such as OpenEdX.
msg319834 - (view) Author: Andrés Delfino (adelfino) * (Python triager) Date: 2018-06-17 23:04
I have updated the PR with a FAQ that mentions all implementations mentioned here, except Cython and Stackless Python.

I added RapydScript as it's used by VPython for Web visualization, in the category of client-side scripting pythonesque languages/implementations.

I didn't add Cython because it's not clear to me if it's useful for creating extension modules in a pythonesque language, or if it's also useful by it's own.

I didn't add Stackless Python because it doesn't fit with the "problem domain specific" category I've chosen for the FAQ.

I'm pretty sure this will need a few iterations, but at least we have an starting point :)
msg319868 - (view) Author: Petr Viktorin (petr.viktorin) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-06-18 07:48
> I didn't add Cython because it's not clear to me if it's useful for creating extension modules in a pythonesque language, or if it's also useful by it's own.

Cython only makes extensions for CPython, and uses CPython's runtime. But it does have its own syntax, which is quite useful in the number-crunching domain.

I think it should be left out, but then, so should VPython which seems like it's a module usable by either the CPython or RapydScript interpreters.
msg320209 - (view) Author: Mariatta (Mariatta) * (Python committer) Date: 2018-06-22 03:00
Thanks for the PR, and thanks everyone for the feedback.

But I don't think we should be the one maintaining a list of all available alternative Python implementation out there.

There is already a good list: which is the top result when people search for "Python implementation".

I'm inclined to close this issue.
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:59:01adminsetgithub: 78057
2018-06-22 03:00:59Mariattasetstatus: open -> closed

nosy: + Mariatta
messages: + msg320209

resolution: rejected
stage: patch review -> resolved
2018-06-18 11:32:53adelfinosettitle: doc Mention the MicroPython implementation in Introduction -> doc Mention relevant pythonesque implementations
2018-06-18 07:48:28petr.viktorinsetnosy: + petr.viktorin
messages: + msg319868
2018-06-17 23:04:29adelfinosettype: enhancement
messages: + msg319834
2018-06-16 16:16:52willingcsetmessages: + msg319759
2018-06-16 16:10:31adelfinosetmessages: + msg319758
2018-06-16 14:24:37willingcsetmessages: + msg319739
2018-06-16 13:36:04adelfinosetmessages: + msg319738
2018-06-16 07:43:13rhettingersetmessages: + msg319727
2018-06-16 07:40:29rhettingersetnosy: + rhettinger
messages: + msg319726
2018-06-16 03:45:09willingcsetnosy: + willingc
messages: + msg319705
2018-06-16 03:17:39adelfinosetkeywords: + patch
stage: patch review
pull_requests: + pull_request7349
2018-06-16 03:15:10adelfinocreate