Greg Ewing writes:
> On 7/04/21 5:22 am, Brandt Bucher wrote:
> > we might consider updating those templates if the term "Reference
> > Implementation" implies a higher standard than "we've put in the
> > work to make this happen, and you can try it out here"
>
> Maybe "prototype implementation" would be better? I think I've used
> that term in PEPs before.
That seems to me to correspond well to Brandt's standard as expressed
above.
To me, "prototype implementation" is somewhere between "proof of
concept" and "reference implementation", and I welcome the additional
precision. The big question is can such terms be used accurately (ie,
do various people assign similar meanings to them)?
I would define them functionally as
proof of concept
demonstrates some of the features, especially those that were
considered "difficult to implement"
prototype implementation
implements the whole spec, so can be used be developers to
prototype applications,
reference implementation
intended to be a complete and accurate implementation of the
specification
By "complete and accurate" I mean that it can be used experimentally
to understand what the spec means without much worry that the
proponent will brush off questions with "oh, that's just not
implemented yet, read the spec if you want to know how it will work
when we're done." Furthermore, any divergence between spec and
implementation is a bug that is actually a broken promise. (The
promise implied by "reference".) Finally, as development continues
there is a promise that the spec and implementation will be kept in
sync (of course changes might be provisional, but even then the sync
should be maintained).
I don't think the Platonic ideal interpretation of "reference
implementation" is very useful. Software evolves. It evolves very
quickly during initial development, but it's useful to "ask the
implementation" about the spec even then. That's implied by
methodologies like test-driven development. There are other workflows
where that's not true. My claim is that "reference implementation"
can be useful to distinguish development processes where you expect
the implementation to reliably reflect the spec, even in corner cases,
from those where you shouldn't. And even as the software evolves.
Note that if we use this definition, then the "Reference
Implementation" requirement of the PEP process becomes quite a high
bar. I think we all agree on that. So I advocate, as Brandt
suggested, that we revise the PEP template. In particular I think it
should use Greg's term "prototype implementation". Optionally, we
could make "reference implementation" available to proponents who wish
to make that claim about their implementation.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/EB5SAMRY2ZHB6C3XK25GLBJKNJ2WDYUX/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
