6 ms·
Why didn’t they simply invested in PyPy? Something that would continue and be maintained because of the passion and conviction around the project.
by fcanesin 5y ago
Why didn’t they simply invested in PyPy? Something that would continue and be maintained because of the passion and conviction around the project.
- lacker 5y agoI think this section of the readme speaks to that: Is this supported? Short answer: no. We've made Cinder publicly available in order to facilitate conversation about potentially upstreaming some of this work to CPython and to reduce duplication of effort among people working on CPython performance. Cinder is not polished or documented for anyone else's use. We don't have the capacity to support Cinder as an independent open-source project, nor any desire for it to become an alternative to CPython. Facebook is basically just open-sourcing their changes to CPython, in order to make it easier to work with core CPython developers. For a company of Facebook's size, migrating to PyPy would probably be have been a much bigger endeavor than simply forking CPython. Since the goal of this open-sourcing is to improve CPython rather than to attract people to a competitor, I would interpret this work as "Facebook investing in CPython" rather than "Facebook investing in a CPython alternative".