[ayhanfuat]

Sadly, the field is still mostly dominated by commercial solvers. There are a few open source ones but their performance is nowhere near the commercial ones which is kind of expected given the number of people working on them and the little funding they have. It is really a pity that the OR world hasn't embraced open source as much as ML world.

[Chio]

This is true, but there is HiGHS [1] which is "good enough" to use for a lot of real problems (though the commercial solvers are still better).

[1] https://highs.dev/

[crsn]

I'm working actively on this area – anyone interested in helping should please get in touch! [e-mail]

[PartiallyTyped]

The thing is, ML building blocks are very simple and composable, I don't think that holds for solvers.

[petters]

Yes, I think this is true. I've worked in both fields. But we should be really happy about the fact that we did not end up in the same place with ML.

[PartiallyTyped]

> But we should be really happy about the fact that we did not end up in the same place with ML.

Why so?

[petters]

I believe having our tools available as open source is good for the society as a whole.

[owlbite]

Also ML gets a lot more funding (academic or commercial) than MILP.

[amluto]

The pricing of some of this software is absurd — easily enough for a company using more than one or two server licenses to dedicate an entire FTE toward open source.