[lsb-discuss] Why python was chosen as a part of LSB?

Net Kgk netkgk at gmail.com
Wed Jun 18 14:41:09 UTC 2014

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Jeff Licquia
<licquia at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Ruby has had problems with standardization.  They broke backward
> compatibility in a maintenance release a while back, as I recall.  Also,
> they typically don't maintain old versions for any length of time when
> these breaks do happen; it's generally "just upgrade".  That's not going
> to be possible with enterprise distros with multiple-year commitments to
> compatibility.
Same as python (I have two version installed at the moment as Gnome 3
requirements), same as Linux kernel itself. Linus Torvalds had
expressed clearly about backward compatibility. API freeze leads to
slow down of project development.

> They seem to have changed a bit in their attitudes towards standards,
> though, so who knows what the future will hold?
>> Perl is popular.
> And is a part of the LSB, added at the same time as Python.
I didn't count Perl intentionally, as in general it is not used for
new projects and is not considered as a 'modern'.

>> Javascript is popular.
> But, until recently, had no interpreter outside of the browser.  How, in
> the world before node.js, was one suppose to write a JavaScript program
> and just run it?
Mozilla's JavaScript implementation are available for years
https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/js/ including separate

> Because when they wanted to refactor the language, they did it in a
> separate development effort, and were careful to preserve compatibility
> for old scripts by maintaining the old version for a long time (and are,
> indeed, still maintaining it).  This is something we look for when
> considering things to standardize.
Please answer my initial question: How exactly two python interpreters
installed are better of the two Ruby interpreters.

> Sorry about your luck, there.  But adding Ruby to the LSB wouldn't have
> fixed that problem, because Ruby isn't (or wasn't) in the position to be
> counted on as "just part of the Linux environment".  That's a position
> they chose, and while it has some advantages for them, it also has some
> drawbacks, and this is one of them.
So what you're saying, there's no way to add Ruby or JavaScript to LSB
even  if all required test will be provided?

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list