5 ms·

This is potentially problematic. It creates a conflict of interest: will the GIL proposal be accepted based on technical merits and potential benefits to the Py

This is potentially problematic. It creates a conflict of interest: will the GIL proposal be accepted based on technical merits and potential benefits to the Python community overall, or just because the Python foundation wanted money? The problems that Meta faces in production are not necessarily the problems faced by every Python developer. In particular, Meta might value performance more than backwards-compatibility, while other Python users might feel differently. If Meta were to offer unconditional support, that would clearly be good for Python; attaching conditions to their support makes the situation trickier to navigate.

draw_down 3y ago
[dead]
jsnell 3y ago
Your premise is incorrect, as this is not a promise of money.
bob1029 3y ago
What is Meta's end game with Python? Do they genuinely just want a stable build without GIL because of some cranky in-house code piles, or is this the first step towards a bigger mission to wrangle an entire ecosystem?
- AlphaSite 3y ago
  They use Python as the basis for instagram, which is a large growing service.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    And now Threads as well.
- trollied 3y ago
  Would you they rather used these man years to implement it behind closed doors & never release the build? They use Python. They want to donate engineering time. They think this is a good idea. Why does there have to be a sinister motive?
  - kevincox 3y ago
    Calling it a "donation" is even too generous. They use python and would save a lot of money running it (less severs) if it could run multi-threaded. Implementing it themselves and maintaining a fork may be cheaper in the short term but due to ongoing maintenance and third-party extension incompatibility it would likely cost them more in the long run. So they are effectively investing 3 engineer/years of resources to A) ensure the project gets done and B) help it get done faster. I don't see any charity here, this is just a smart business move by them. When you run as many servers as Meta does being able to run 1/4 as many instances is huge RAM and therefore money saving. It won't take long to add up to 3 engineer/years.
    - fsociety 3y ago
      I agree charity is not the right way to frame it. But if this was a pure money decision they would save time and effort forking the language and improving it as closed source. They have the expertise to run a language fork and because of the scale they run at they would easily save more money doing so. Meta contributing to OSS is not an economic decision. It is about branding, trying to attract technically strong individuals (who tend to contribute to OSS or want to), and sticking to their open culture.
      - biorach 3y ago
        > they would save time and effort forking the language and improving it as closed source. Actually, experience has shown the opposite to be true. Time and time again even large organisations find their fork falling behind the community version and the pain of merging new versions from upstream grows and grows
- netheril96 3y ago
  GIL has been a major pain point when training machine learning models, where every library is Python first. The data preprocessing phase must happen quickly enough and in parallel with respect to the GPU operations. The simplest option is doing data processing in several threads other than the one driving GPU operations, but that is not possible with GIL. TensorFlow and PyTorch each has their workarounds for this problem, but many difficulties remain. Removing the GIL will be greatly beneficial to this domain at least.
OldManRyan 3y ago
You not reading the thread is problematic. Meta is pledging 3 years of engineer time not money.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  Time is money. Meta is pledging the salaries of three individuals.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    But it is just for the nogil project. If suppose python foundation doesn't believe merit in GIL, they aren't getting any benefit out of the situation.
    - nullindividual 3y ago
      Never the less, the OP is incorrect. Time is money. The fact HN doesn't seem to recognize this and downvoted the comment is mystifying. We all remember the anti-OSS 'Linux is only free if your time is free'.
      - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
        Because the whole point of the thread is "It creates a conflict of interest because money" which it doesn't. Time costs money, sure, but time is not equal to money. There are many differences. Otherwise where is my money from HN.
        nullindividual 3y ago
        Woah, are you kidding? I would have died to have people dedicated to OSS I worked on! Time is money. We get paid for our _time_ at the core of what we do as a profession. This should be plainly obvious. The alternative is Meta puts in no money to salaries and benefits for up to three individual's time on this project, or Meta puts in no money at all. Meta is paying, one way or another, for this project.

draw_down 3y ago

[dead]

jsnell 3y ago

Your premise is incorrect, as this is not a promise of money.

bob1029 3y ago

What is Meta's end game with Python? Do they genuinely just want a stable build without GIL because of some cranky in-house code piles, or is this the first step towards a bigger mission to wrangle an entire ecosystem?

AlphaSite 3y ago
They use Python as the basis for instagram, which is a large growing service.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  And now Threads as well.
trollied 3y ago
Would you they rather used these man years to implement it behind closed doors & never release the build? They use Python. They want to donate engineering time. They think this is a good idea. Why does there have to be a sinister motive?
- kevincox 3y ago
  Calling it a "donation" is even too generous. They use python and would save a lot of money running it (less severs) if it could run multi-threaded. Implementing it themselves and maintaining a fork may be cheaper in the short term but due to ongoing maintenance and third-party extension incompatibility it would likely cost them more in the long run. So they are effectively investing 3 engineer/years of resources to A) ensure the project gets done and B) help it get done faster. I don't see any charity here, this is just a smart business move by them. When you run as many servers as Meta does being able to run 1/4 as many instances is huge RAM and therefore money saving. It won't take long to add up to 3 engineer/years.
  - fsociety 3y ago
    I agree charity is not the right way to frame it. But if this was a pure money decision they would save time and effort forking the language and improving it as closed source. They have the expertise to run a language fork and because of the scale they run at they would easily save more money doing so. Meta contributing to OSS is not an economic decision. It is about branding, trying to attract technically strong individuals (who tend to contribute to OSS or want to), and sticking to their open culture.
    - biorach 3y ago
      > they would save time and effort forking the language and improving it as closed source. Actually, experience has shown the opposite to be true. Time and time again even large organisations find their fork falling behind the community version and the pain of merging new versions from upstream grows and grows
netheril96 3y ago
GIL has been a major pain point when training machine learning models, where every library is Python first. The data preprocessing phase must happen quickly enough and in parallel with respect to the GPU operations. The simplest option is doing data processing in several threads other than the one driving GPU operations, but that is not possible with GIL. TensorFlow and PyTorch each has their workarounds for this problem, but many difficulties remain. Removing the GIL will be greatly beneficial to this domain at least.

OldManRyan 3y ago

You not reading the thread is problematic. Meta is pledging 3 years of engineer time not money.

nullindividual 3y ago
Time is money. Meta is pledging the salaries of three individuals.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  But it is just for the nogil project. If suppose python foundation doesn't believe merit in GIL, they aren't getting any benefit out of the situation.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    Never the less, the OP is incorrect. Time is money. The fact HN doesn't seem to recognize this and downvoted the comment is mystifying. We all remember the anti-OSS 'Linux is only free if your time is free'.
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      Because the whole point of the thread is "It creates a conflict of interest because money" which it doesn't. Time costs money, sure, but time is not equal to money. There are many differences. Otherwise where is my money from HN.
      - nullindividual 3y ago
        Woah, are you kidding? I would have died to have people dedicated to OSS I worked on! Time is money. We get paid for our _time_ at the core of what we do as a profession. This should be plainly obvious. The alternative is Meta puts in no money to salaries and benefits for up to three individual's time on this project, or Meta puts in no money at all. Meta is paying, one way or another, for this project.