Re: If Guido was hit by a bus?

Robin Friedrich (
30 Jun 1994 21:41:40 GMT

Stephen J Bevan <> writes:
>Mike Tibbs writes:
> > A "standard" definition of Python would go a long way toward
> > acceptance by management here especially if there is an
> > impartial validation process, a la Ada. People want to be assured
> > that a new language like Python won't dissappear into oblivion
> > (like Forth, etc).
>FYI there is a ANSI standard for Forth. Therefore, either Forth hasn't
>disappeared into oblivion or it has and the standard didn't help :-)

As far as I'm concerned having a standard would not be worth the
expense. What is really needed to convince management that python is
viable is some semblance of support structure. We use languages for
applications which have no official standards endorsement, (e.g.
PV~WAVE command language) and nobody objects because it's supported by
a vendor. I'm not proposing Python go commercial (although if it does I
think we should all get 100 shares ;) but just have some sort of
establishment (not an individual) to point to for support. A
consortium, association, something permanent sounding. The federal
government bought into X windows even though it was just a hack by a
bunch of guys at MIT (with some industry support) who's "reference
implimentation" wasn't even any good because of the X consortium and
the MIT moniker.

"Python doesn't work as it should?" why just
"call The Python Consortium {TPC Inc.}!"
(which of course is a pointer to a pointer to this news group ;-))

If Python is ready for prime time then this is the time to say so.
Python IMHO is a great language with broad applicability and should
not be kept to a small cadre. This should not impact the growth of
the language. To the contrary it should help... if extension work could
be better coordinated, for example.

| Robin K. Friedrich | |
| Rockwell Space Operations | (713) 282-2974 |
| Houston, TX | |