4 ms·

My understanding is that pylance bundles in several ML models that back a lot of its performance increases over pyright and it is the ML models and closed-sourc

My understanding is that pylance bundles in several ML models that back a lot of its performance increases over pyright and it is the ML models and closed-source data science that caused the LSP closure. I think data science also is best when it itself is open/open-source, and peer reviewed. I can understand why Microsoft wants to make that a moat to protect expensive data science and ML research boundaries and it doesn't seem that baffling to me if that is indeed the reason why they closed source pylance, even as I question if it was the best choice.

jsmeaton 4y ago
Thanks for this, it was definitely news to me. If this is the case then it makes slightly more sense, but is still disappointing.
- bergheim 4y ago
  I don't understand this. It makes sense "because ML"?
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    Unfortunately, yes. I know a lot of companies (here on HN, my current employer, etc) are talking about ML like it is cheap and easy to build, but you get what you pay for and right now it looks from budgets that Microsoft is paying for a lot of high quality effort. Again, I think it would be beneficial if more of this work was done out in the open, in part to open it to good critique and peer review, and in part to make it more obvious to everyone (including companies such as my current employer) that proper data science is still an expensive investment that requires a ton of work and hidden costs. But the catch-22 there is of course the more expensive the investment the greater the desire to protect it and keep it secret (at least in the short term where it seems a competitive advantage).
  - jsmeaton 4y ago
    No, because it's no longer "just code". Bundling in assets (ML models, server keys, etc) makes it more difficult to open source something. So, while I don't agree that it should be closed source, it makes a little more sense to me why they might have gone that way.

jsmeaton 4y ago

Thanks for this, it was definitely news to me. If this is the case then it makes slightly more sense, but is still disappointing.

bergheim 4y ago
I don't understand this. It makes sense "because ML"?
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Unfortunately, yes. I know a lot of companies (here on HN, my current employer, etc) are talking about ML like it is cheap and easy to build, but you get what you pay for and right now it looks from budgets that Microsoft is paying for a lot of high quality effort. Again, I think it would be beneficial if more of this work was done out in the open, in part to open it to good critique and peer review, and in part to make it more obvious to everyone (including companies such as my current employer) that proper data science is still an expensive investment that requires a ton of work and hidden costs. But the catch-22 there is of course the more expensive the investment the greater the desire to protect it and keep it secret (at least in the short term where it seems a competitive advantage).
- jsmeaton 4y ago
  No, because it's no longer "just code". Bundling in assets (ML models, server keys, etc) makes it more difficult to open source something. So, while I don't agree that it should be closed source, it makes a little more sense to me why they might have gone that way.