[vkazanov]

Just to name alternatives: Cpython, Pypy, jython, ironpython.

Then, there quite a few python-likes out there.

I wish they would stay precise.

[appplication]

Yes, but no one is ever talking about pypy or jython implicitly. They are always mentioned by name because they represent <0.1% of all Python usage and are relegated essentially exclusively to niche or experimental use cases for power users.

It’s a bit like arguing people should start saying “homo sapiens” when referencing “people” for added precision. It may be useful to anthropologists but the rest of us really don’t need that. Similarly, CPython is really only a sensible level of precision in a discussion directly about alternative Python implementations.

(although in this case the original post is about implementation internals so I’d give it a pass)

[rich_sasha]

This seems to be literally looking at the details of the C implementation of a Python interpreter. Exactly specifying the implementation makes sense here. You wouldn't say "how does the C++ compiler work" then look only at gcc.

[tonymet]

I like this debate because it triggers everyone’s pragmatic frustration with the philosophy of language.

Are things defined by the dictionary or by everyday experiences?

[foresto]

Also: https://micropython.org/

[tonymet]

Another great example that no one would confuse for python.

[tonymet]

CPython, pypy, jython are not alternatives.

CPython is Python. The others are attempts.

[tonymet]

I don’t think it’s good form to downvote people you disagree with.