9 ms·

> I'm wondering why there isn't a corresponding project for Python. But there are various projects for Python. For example, there's Pyston [0] which was start

> I'm wondering why there isn't a corresponding project for Python. But there are various projects for Python. For example, there's Pyston [0] which was started by Dropbox. Or Cinder [1] which was started by Facebook. Or PyPy [2]. [0] https://github.com/pyston/pyston https://github.com/pyston/pyston [1] https://github.com/facebookincubator/cinder https://github.com/facebookincubator/cinder [2] https://www.pypy.org/ https://www.pypy.org/

joelbluminator 5y ago
Still, adoption of these solutions seems low (PyPy seems to be a JIT as well is it really a corresponding solution?). If it magically reduces memory by as much as 30%-50% why isn't adoption higher? In other words what are the drawbacks of doing this, there must be cons.
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  Author of Fullstaq Ruby here. From what I understand by talking to people, the reasons why Fullstaq Ruby doesn't have wider adoption are as follows: It's not a project officially blessed by Ruby core. Upstream Ruby is actually "good enough" for most. Most people don't feel the pain enough to try something which appears as unofficial. Perhaps their thinking are similar to yours: I'm hesitant because not everbody else is already using this. I want to make this an official project. But before I do, I want to make sure that the project is sufficiently ready: healthy, democratized, not reliant on myself: https://www.joyfulbikeshedding.com/blog/2020-05-15-why-fullstaq-ruby.html https://www.joyfulbikeshedding.com/blog/2020-05-15-why-fulls... I am also not marketing this as hard as I should. I lack free time. Another reason is because of the beta label. The only reason why the label is there is because I have a specific, ambitious vision on how "final" should look like (i.e. more features), not because it's unstable. Feedback from users regarding stability has been very good so far. I might be shooting myself in the foot marketing-wise by not removing the beta label earlier, but I'd rather do a good job than to hurry.

joelbluminator 5y ago

Still, adoption of these solutions seems low (PyPy seems to be a JIT as well is it really a corresponding solution?). If it magically reduces memory by as much as 30%-50% why isn't adoption higher? In other words what are the drawbacks of doing this, there must be cons.

FooBarWidget 5y ago
Author of Fullstaq Ruby here. From what I understand by talking to people, the reasons why Fullstaq Ruby doesn't have wider adoption are as follows: It's not a project officially blessed by Ruby core. Upstream Ruby is actually "good enough" for most. Most people don't feel the pain enough to try something which appears as unofficial. Perhaps their thinking are similar to yours: I'm hesitant because not everbody else is already using this. I want to make this an official project. But before I do, I want to make sure that the project is sufficiently ready: healthy, democratized, not reliant on myself: https://www.joyfulbikeshedding.com/blog/2020-05-15-why-fullstaq-ruby.html https://www.joyfulbikeshedding.com/blog/2020-05-15-why-fulls... I am also not marketing this as hard as I should. I lack free time. Another reason is because of the beta label. The only reason why the label is there is because I have a specific, ambitious vision on how "final" should look like (i.e. more features), not because it's unstable. Feedback from users regarding stability has been very good so far. I might be shooting myself in the foot marketing-wise by not removing the beta label earlier, but I'd rather do a good job than to hurry.