Talk:Python (programming language)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023
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)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done via Wikidata —&#8288;PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What platforms can run Python applications?
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)

Climate change
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.  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)
 * 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)

Naming
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)


 * ❌ 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)