[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]

c++ / g++ is not comparable because the original c++ reference compilers are not commercially popular today. No one is using Strouvestroups compilers.

CPython is Python. Every time your buddy says “just download python” you are using CPython . There’s no reason to be pedantic.

[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?