Hi Daniel. We've done all of the proposed scenarios. We had some success talking to companies, but there is a lot of resistance for various reasons (and the successful proposals I can't talk about), including the inability to pay open source from the engineering budget and instead doing it via the marketing budget (which is orders of magnitude slower). In short - you need to offer them something in exchange, which usually means you need to do a good job, but not good enough (so you can fix it for money). This is a very perverse incentive, btu this is how it goes. As for kickstarter - that targets primarily end-user experience and not infrastructure. As such, it's hard to find money from users for infrastructure, because it has relatively few direct users - mostly large companies. As for who is working on this subject - I am. Feel free to get in touch with me via other channels (private mail, gchat, IRC) if you have deeper insights Best regards, Maciej Fijalkowski On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> wrote:
Thanks for answer Maciej! I'm glad that this is in progress. It isn't possible to make some image about the situation from what I have found on the web. You response clarifies that a bit. I understand how difficult it can be. But I disagree with you regarding kickstarter. Pypy is connected to user experience. E.g. I am working as datascientists and pypy is running about 3 times faster on the code I am able to use it on (which is, unfortunately, minority - most of it is of course in those 4 libraries which shines red on the library support wall - numpy, scipy, pandas, scikit-learn). Similar with (py)Spark. I would say there are more data scientists using Python than those who likes to use "MicroPython on the ESP8266". The gain this field can get from Pypy is quite substantial, even with that conservative estimate about 3 times as fast compared to cPython. And that is just one example. Of course, I cannot ensure that you might get reasonably funded on kickstarter-like sites. But, what can you lose by making a campaign? It would be definitely much more visible than on your website, which, to be honest, could be a bit modernized as well. And even if it wouldn't be a success, you still get PR basically for free. I, unfortunately, don't have any insights or recommendation, it just scratched my mind. Thanks for your awesome work, Daniel čt 19. 5. 2016 v 18:12 odesílatel Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> napsal:
Hi Daniel. As for kickstarter - it requires you to be american to start with :-P As for numpy etc. - I can assure you we're working on the support for those libraries as fast as possible, at the same time looking for funding through commercial sources. As for the website modernization - yes, this has to be done at some point soon (and I started doing steps in that direction), but *that* sort of things are really difficult to fund :-) Cheers, fijal On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Kotrfa <kotrfa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, On 19 May 2016 at 21:29, Kotrfa <kotrfa@gmail.com> wrote:
I should add that we did that already: we have three fundraisers linked from the website---or maybe *had,* given that we launced them long ago already. It was reasonably successful. We're now thinking about what we'll do next. A bientôt, Armin.
Hey, thanks for your answers. I know you are working on numpy and similar libraries, as well about the fundraisers on your site. I am glad there is something happening around this. Thank you for your work and information, Daniel čt 19. 5. 2016 v 23:53 odesílatel Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> napsal:
Indeed kickstarter (or similar) cannot be about general research of infrastructure. It has to be about something visible, a goal that's shared in a crowd. IMO a campaign to achieve cpython-3.latest parity in pypy will get backers. Not only from pypy users, but also from cpython world, because: * it places Python 3 (language) into mainstream pypy, thus closing py2/py3 divide, and * it establishes Python as a larger standard (two implementations) Just my 2c. d. On 19 May 2016 at 18:12, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Daniel. We've done all of the proposed scenarios. We had some success talking to companies, but there is a lot of resistance for various reasons (and the successful proposals I can't talk about), including the inability to pay open source from the engineering budget and instead doing it via the marketing budget (which is orders of magnitude slower). In short - you need to offer them something in exchange, which usually means you need to do a good job, but not good enough (so you can fix it for money). This is a very perverse incentive, btu this is how it goes. As for kickstarter - that targets primarily end-user experience and not infrastructure. As such, it's hard to find money from users for infrastructure, because it has relatively few direct users - mostly large companies. As for who is working on this subject - I am. Feel free to get in touch with me via other channels (private mail, gchat, IRC) if you have deeper insights Best regards, Maciej Fijalkowski On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> wrote:
Thanks for answer Maciej! I'm glad that this is in progress. It isn't possible to make some image about the situation from what I have found on the web. You response clarifies that a bit. I understand how difficult it can be. But I disagree with you regarding kickstarter. Pypy is connected to user experience. E.g. I am working as datascientists and pypy is running about 3 times faster on the code I am able to use it on (which is, unfortunately, minority - most of it is of course in those 4 libraries which shines red on the library support wall - numpy, scipy, pandas, scikit-learn). Similar with (py)Spark. I would say there are more data scientists using Python than those who likes to use "MicroPython on the ESP8266". The gain this field can get from Pypy is quite substantial, even with that conservative estimate about 3 times as fast compared to cPython. And that is just one example. Of course, I cannot ensure that you might get reasonably funded on kickstarter-like sites. But, what can you lose by making a campaign? It would be definitely much more visible than on your website, which, to be honest, could be a bit modernized as well. And even if it wouldn't be a success, you still get PR basically for free. I, unfortunately, don't have any insights or recommendation, it just scratched my mind. Thanks for your awesome work, Daniel čt 19. 5. 2016 v 18:12 odesílatel Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> napsal:
Hi Daniel. As for kickstarter - it requires you to be american to start with :-P As for numpy etc. - I can assure you we're working on the support for those libraries as fast as possible, at the same time looking for funding through commercial sources. As for the website modernization - yes, this has to be done at some point soon (and I started doing steps in that direction), but *that* sort of things are really difficult to fund :-) Cheers, fijal On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Kotrfa <kotrfa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, On 19 May 2016 at 21:29, Kotrfa <kotrfa@gmail.com> wrote:
I should add that we did that already: we have three fundraisers linked from the website---or maybe *had,* given that we launced them long ago already. It was reasonably successful. We're now thinking about what we'll do next. A bientôt, Armin.
Hey, thanks for your answers. I know you are working on numpy and similar libraries, as well about the fundraisers on your site. I am glad there is something happening around this. Thank you for your work and information, Daniel čt 19. 5. 2016 v 23:53 odesílatel Armin Rigo <arigo@tunes.org> napsal:
Indeed kickstarter (or similar) cannot be about general research of infrastructure. It has to be about something visible, a goal that's shared in a crowd. IMO a campaign to achieve cpython-3.latest parity in pypy will get backers. Not only from pypy users, but also from cpython world, because: * it places Python 3 (language) into mainstream pypy, thus closing py2/py3 divide, and * it establishes Python as a larger standard (two implementations) Just my 2c. d. On 19 May 2016 at 18:12, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:
participants (4)
-
Armin Rigo -
Dima Tisnek -
Kotrfa -
Maciej Fijalkowski