> 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
I'm quite surprised by that. I understand that FB makes tons of money so I can't believe they can't have the capacity... Maybe they don't have the will (which I perfectly understand, it's just the wording)
Anyway, it's great they share.
Our team is smaller than you might think! You also left off the last half of that sentence, which is quite important: "nor any desire for it to become an alternative to CPython."
We'd love to see the ideas and implementations in Cinder end up in upstream CPython in some form or another. It'll make our lives easier in that we won't have to maintain as much forked code, and hopefully everyone else will benefit from a faster CPython.
I thought so but the other half of my brain was screaming for "FB has so much power, how come they don't invest more in open source".
But well, that's economics at play I guess. I'm an idealist after all... Thx for replying !
The most interesting aspect really is that both companies have run in to the limits of performance with dynamically typed languages and had to implement their own language runtimes, AOT compilers, and JIT's.
Static typing is the best way forward at scale.
I think what they are looking for is to reduce the amount of machines they need. Which in the end is more money in their pockets. Making the website faster for the end user is a welcome side effect.
nothing is documented in facebook. There are no advantages to doing documentation in your career.