If Guido was hit by a bus?

[Michael McLay]

What if you saw this posted tommorrow.

> Guido's unexpected death has come as a shock to us all. Disgruntled
> members of the Tcl mob are suspected, but no smoking gun has been found...

I just returned from a meeting in which the major objection to using
Python was its dependence on Guido. They wanted to know if Python
would survive if Guido disappeared. This is an important issue for
businesses that may be considering the use of Python in a product.

I suspect that someone else would probably pick up the Python banner
if Guido dropped dead of exhaustion or if he is rubbed out by a member
of a rival language following. I wouldn't bring it up, but managers
of projects weigh risk heavily in selecting technology and they want
to know who owns Python. (They also prefer to have someone to hold
accountable when something goes wrong.) There also appears to be a
perception that commercial vendors are a lower risk because they have
a vested interest to continue to support a product and academic
research projects are a high risk because the product can disappear
when a researcher's interest change or they moves to a new job. (BTW,
what will be the fate vpApp?)

A somewhat related topic is one of getting the official blessing of a
standards organization for Python. Lots of businesses are
uncomfortable using languages that are not blessed by a standards
organization. Procurements are easier if you can just call out a
standard as a requirement. It also makes it possible to have a
third party perform conformance testing.

Turning Python into a standard might not be very difficult or costly
if it could be done as an Internet standard. The rules for
participating in the IETF standard process should appeal to the Python
followers. Look at the following gopher document for details.

gopher://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/11/isoc.and.ietf/ietf/standards.and.copyrights

Is there any interest in formalizing the standard definition of
Python?

Michael J. McLay
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Bld 220 Rm A357 (office), Bld 220 Rm B344 (mail)
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, (301)975-4099

[Robin Friedrich]

The sentiments Mike McLay expressed are valid here as well. I am involved
in a ruseable object software project for NASA and internet provides great
riches, but unfortunately, like the stock market, riches are proportional
to risks. (At least that's the way managers look at it.) I'm having major
headaches trying to insert new technology into our operational systems.
They even said no to using GNU C++ on the odd ball CDC Unix workstations
they have when their were no other commercial alternatives.
I really want to use python as a glue language for our systems but I'll
need some good rhetoric to go with the arguably superior technology.

--------------------------------------------------------------
| Robin K. Friedrich | frie...@rsoc.rockwell.com |
| Rockwell Space Operations | (713) 282-2974 |
| Houston, TX | |
--------------------------------------------------------------

[Mike Tibbs]

>Is there any interest in formalizing the standard definition of
>Python?

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).

-Mike Tibbs

[Michael Powers]

>I just returned from a meeting in which the major objection to using
>Python was its dependence on Guido. They wanted to know if Python
>would survive if Guido disappeared. This is an important issue for
>businesses that may be considering the use of Python in a product.
>

Ugh...can't we have one "living" small language in the world, free of
royalties, free of liscensing, free to be changed any way we want. Python
is not so large that it cannot be handled in house for revisions and such.
If it does get this large it is no longer an extension language. I chose
python for ITV development for just the opposite reason that the above
group did. Because it is not driven by committee, its small, and all of it
is free! I will pay the price of a non-standard...gladly.

Mike

- Besides, Guido is young and far from bored, no? :)

[ALL...@uhphys.phys.uh.edu]

After reading several responses to the (somewhat morbid) question of
being hit by a large vehicle, I ask: Does "standardizing" slow down
progress? If a standard restricts what the authors and users can
do together then forget it. If it's just a matter of paperwork, and
IF someone's willing to push the paper, then there isn't any harm.

I ask that we avoid putting up roadblocks and slowing things down. Those
of us (the majority of us) that are trying to cover several areas need
all the help we can get. Especially those of us on the low IQ end...

-- Mark C. Allman
-- Grad. Student, Physics (Stat. Mech.), U. of Houston
-- all...@uhphys.phys.uh.edu

[Dik.W...@cwi.nl]

> After reading several responses to the (somewhat morbid) question of
> being hit by a large vehicle, I ask: Does "standardizing" slow down
> progress? If a standard restricts what the authors and users can
> do together then forget it. If it's just a matter of paperwork, and
> IF someone's willing to push the paper, then there isn't any harm.

If it is a permissive standard there will not be so very much slow down
of progress. But my experience is that permissive standards are rare.
In general standards cast in concrete what is current practice (see
for instance the C standard). Indeed, it's just a matter of paperwork,
but a large amount of paper work. Expect a body of 10 people to work on
it for about 2 years and you will have something approaching a standard.
And, a standard of python as it is *now*, not as it will be in 2 years
(do not expect standardization efforst to keep up with current practice).

But on the subject, mind that there are a lot of buses going through
the city and that Guido goes amongst them on his bicycle without even
wearing a hard hat.

[Stephen J Bevan]

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 :-)

[Robin Friedrich]

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.