Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

discuss.python.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#171

Post by mixmastamyk »

jborean93 wrote: post #145
mixmastamyk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor management has played a role. They refused to invest in packaging to the extent that a separate company (astral) had to do it for them. Bugs closed for years with the excuse “we’re only volunteers.” Meanwhile, “outreach” was funded for several million a year. Not confidence inspiring. Maybe would have improved if the funds had been spent more appropriately. Similar story with Mozilla.

> They refused to invest in packaging to the extent that a separate company (astral) had to do it for them uv didn't just happen in a vacuum, there has been lots of investment in the Python packaging ecosystem that has enabled it (and other tools) to try and improve the shortcomings of Python and packaging. There's PEP 518 [1] for build requirements, PEP 600 [2] for manylinux wheels, PEP 621 [3] for pyproject.toml, P…

Obviously, but writing PEPs is not enough. Read through the comments under any Python thread here from the late 2010s to early 2020s. Just ~two years ago you couldn't talk about anything Python-related without discussion veering far offtopic to complain about packaging.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#172

Post by simianwords »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #122
simianwords wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is clearly not what I'm speaking about - there are only a few applications that talk to an LLM.

The article is about Anthropic's contribution to Python. Pretty much all of their code talks to an LLM. And just a few comments earlier you said: > Just recently I heard that typed languages are best for agentic programming Are we not talking about using python (or some alternative) to constrain the behavior of agents?

I was more thinking of python used as general purpose backend language. We can use LLM's to vibecode such languages.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#173

Post by blibble »

tyre wrote: post #84
DrBazza wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single financial institution on Wall Street, the City of London, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Dubai and so on, uses Python. Very few contribute. I've worked at a few that use the 'mold' linker to dramatically reduce their build times. Again, very few contribute. In this particular case, I managed to get one former employer to make a donation. But the list goes on. Short arms, deep pockets, as the saying goes.

It’s interesting to see everyone advocate for open source software with permissive licenses, then get mad when companies use them. If python wants to require money for updates or for customers over $X in revenue, they can! If companies don’t want to donate, they don’t have to just as python contributors don’t have to if they’re annoyed at how it’s used.

very easy way to make bank would be to support extended security updates for old versions of python

a couple of paid engineers could support every previous version essentially forever

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#174

Post by NSPG911 »

geodel wrote: post #115
twoquestions wrote: post #40

Glad to see Anthropic continuing to invest in the longevity and quality of their open-source dependencies! If you missed it, they bought Bun a while back, which is what Claude Code is built in: https://bun.sh/blog/bun-joins-anthropic

Wow. Just came to know from your comment. Not sure if it was covered here on HN. I totally missed it.

It happened quite a while back, most of us knew what direction this was going (Claude Code uses Bun, OpenCode uses Bun, they need Bun to work the best for Claude Code)

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#175

Post by antisthenes »

skeledrew wrote: post #158
notyourwork wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can both applaud the effort and indicate it’s not enough. Two things can be true simultaneously.

It may not be enough, but I think it'd be more appropriate/constructive to point to other companies benefiting from Python that have never contributed, rather than saying one that contributed didn't do enough.

An opportunity for you to convince the leadership at your company to contribute.

Even if it would be a small fraction of $1.5M

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#176

Post by Qem »

shadowgovt wrote: post #32
simianwords wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this but none of the performance benefits.

It's true; mypy won't make your Python faster. To get something like that, you'd want to use Common LISP and SBCL; the SBCL compiler can use type assertions to actually throw away code-paths that would verify type expectations at runtime (introducing undefined behavior if you violate the type assertions). It's pretty great, because you can run it in debug mode where it will assert-fail if your static type assertions…

> mypy won't make your Python faster

Mypyc will do. See https://blog.glyph.im/2022/04/you-should-compile-your-python...

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#177

Post by jborean93 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #171
jborean93 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They refused to invest in packaging to the extent that a separate company (astral) had to do it for them uv didn't just happen in a vacuum, there has been lots of investment in the Python packaging ecosystem that has enabled it (and other tools) to try and improve the shortcomings of Python and packaging. There's PEP 518 [1] for build requirements, PEP 600 [2] for manylinux wheels, PEP 621 [3] for pyproject.toml, P…

Obviously, but writing PEPs is not enough. Read through the comments under any Python thread here from the late 2010s to early 2020s. Just ~two years ago you couldn't talk about anything Python-related without discussion veering far offtopic to complain about packaging.

They didn't just write the PEP, they implemented them.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#178

Post by johnisgood »

adeelk93 wrote: post #138
johnisgood wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate on how $1.5M makes Python better?

You’re asking how money can be used to improve software?

Yes, because lots of these comments seem to imply that more money necessarily makes it better, which is often not the case.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#179

Post by returnInfinity »

nikcub wrote: post #167
returnInfinity wrote: post #74

They are probably trying to build influence. Why is a startup that is burning cash donating money?

really find a negative in it ey - what type of donation and from who would be acceptable to you to fund the python foundation?

This is a step to take control and move in a direction that will profit them greatly.

May or may not benefit the community.

Re: Anthropic invests $1.5M in the Python Software Foundation

#180

Post by exceptione »

shadowgovt wrote: post #131
exceptione wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that this is the selling point. Imho it is nothing special compared to Haskell, F# and the likes.

Python doesn't require you to understand monads to write useful Python. To be clear: Haskell is great, but its entire vibe (lazy evaluation, pure functions) is entirely different from what Python's about. Someone who knows C++ or Java has a much bigger gap to jump to pick up Haskell than to pick up Python.

  > Someone who knows C++ or Java has a much bigger gap to jump to pick up Haskell than to pick up Python.
True, they are all imperative c-style languages.

  > Python doesn't require you to understand monads to write useful Python.
If that is the concern I would recommend anyone interested to dabble with F#. Part of its design philosophy is to keep the complexity out wrt type systems. It offers a vast vetted library¹, better dependency management², it is truly multi-paradigm (imperative, functional and oop), vastly better performance, and it is strongly typed without requiring type annotations³.

I know I am not going to sell it to monogamous devs, but those that are open minded should give it a try.

___

¹ This is something people will start to appreciate once they get serious about the risk of supply chain attacks.

² Python developers feel they are doing fine with pip or uv, at least in my experience, but then I find they haven't dealt with package mgmt in alternative languages.

³ Types in python are a hack, bolting on something afterwards will not reach what is possible with a language that has been designed with types as core element.

Post reply on HN