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

Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

modular.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 272 posts

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#141

Post by qumpis »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #95
Sukera wrote: post #48

Are you afraid that you're going to "inherit" the issues the python ecosystem has through your goal of full compatibility? Or is Mojo more like Numba, in that only parts of python will actually be supported for full acceleration? At least your docs[1] seem to say so.. -- [1]: https://docs.modular.com/mojo/why-mojo.html#intentional-diff...

Agreed. I think this effort is completely missing the real pain points that ML suffers from. While python the language is easy, and in many ways great for its original purpose as a teaching language, I'll take note of the few ways that Python ML suffers: - pip hell. Really, having globally installed dependencies was great for the 90s and is terrible now that disk space is more or less a non-issue relative to dependen…

Poetry and pipenv seem to be quite popular among ML researchers, especially those who care about reproducibility.

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#142

Post by kashif »

JonChesterfield wrote: post #54

Reached end of docs. I'm sold. - Compile time language is ~ the runtime one. That's the model most systems languages seem to have ended up at. It doesn't have macros or reflection, but neither of those seem to be very popular - The struct/let notation and lifetime model essentially give you C++ semantics with saner syntax. The class/def notation essentially give you python semantics. This is a clean answer to the gra…

Have a good look at Nim

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#144

Post by nmsmith »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #125
ummonk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah funnily enough I think "no GC" would be a much better feature in Julia, which would make it a great language for real time applications.

You could do a lot worse than modern GC. For instance, in Rust, lack of GC may cause you to reallocate memory or use reference counting, both of which are likely slower than GC. For instance, building a tree in Rust will do a lot of reference counting, which is a lot of heap accesses.

> building a tree in Rust will do a lot of reference counting

This isn't true in most cases. If every subtree is only referenced by its (unique) parent, then you can use a standard Rust "Box", which means that during compilation, the compiler inserts calls to malloc() (when the Box is created) and free() (when the Box goes out of scope). There will be no reference counting — or any other overhead — at runtime.

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#145

Post by int_19h »

qumpis wrote: post #141
throwawaymaths wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I think this effort is completely missing the real pain points that ML suffers from. While python the language is easy, and in many ways great for its original purpose as a teaching language, I'll take note of the few ways that Python ML suffers: - pip hell. Really, having globally installed dependencies was great for the 90s and is terrible now that disk space is more or less a non-issue relative to dependen…

Poetry and pipenv seem to be quite popular among ML researchers, especially those who care about reproducibility.

For DS/ML, Conda is probably used more often than everything else combined.

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#146

Post by jph00 »

Hi Jeremy Howard here. I pop up in the launch video to demo super-fast matmul and mandelbrot in mojo. I'm pretty excited about this language, to say the least - not just for AI/ML, but for pretty much everything!

Lemme know if you have any questions and I'll answer as best as I can. (I'm an advisor to Modulo.)

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#147

Post by fvncc »

jph00 wrote: post #146

Hi Jeremy Howard here. I pop up in the launch video to demo super-fast matmul and mandelbrot in mojo. I'm pretty excited about this language, to say the least - not just for AI/ML, but for pretty much everything! Lemme know if you have any questions and I'll answer as best as I can. (I'm an advisor to Modulo.)

Hi is there any plan to have high level model training tools (one example is things like Pytorch dataset loaders), or is the focus more on inference/deployment use cases?

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#148

Post by skybrian »

jph00 wrote: post #146

Hi Jeremy Howard here. I pop up in the launch video to demo super-fast matmul and mandelbrot in mojo. I'm pretty excited about this language, to say the least - not just for AI/ML, but for pretty much everything! Lemme know if you have any questions and I'll answer as best as I can. (I'm an advisor to Modulo.)

I'm wondering how the Python interop is implemented. When you import a Python library, is there a separate interpreter that runs the Python code?

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#149

Post by skybrian »

minhazm wrote: post #91
lairv wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their FAQ https://docs.modular.com/mojo/faq.html "Will Mojo be open-sourced? Yes, we expect that Mojo will be open-sourced. However, Mojo is still young, so we will continue to incubate it within Modular until more of its internal architecture is fleshed out. We don’t have an established plan yet. Why not develop Mojo in the open from the beginning? Mojo is a big project and has several architectural differences…

The problem with this is that you don't know what the licensing will be when/if they open source it. So you could start using it now and they might change their mind and choose not to open source it or it might be a restrictive license.

That's true, but the whole language is unstable, so you shouldn't use it for anything big anyway.

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#150

Post by theLiminator »

vosper wrote: post #79
theLiminator wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their response to why it's faster to move while closed source seems kinda like a false dichotomy. They can choose to start with it open disallow input from the community or close their issue tracker to the community.

Why bother doing it that way? Just to entertain people who works like to observe the commit history as the language evolves?

I don't want to commit to a language/ecosystem that might pivot and not open-source.
Post reply on HN