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

181–190 of 272 posts

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#181

Post by revelio »

lairv wrote: post #71
ModernMech wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I was trying to figure out. It seems like the answer is no at this time.

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…

So what's the business model then?

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#182

Post by shgidigo »

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.)

Where is the video?

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#183

Post by pjmlp »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #29
chrislattner wrote: post #20

There are a bunch of questions about Julia, so I'll do my best to give a short answer to a very long and complicated topic. Up front, Julia is a wonderful language and a wonderful community, I am a super fan. That said, Mojo is a completely different thing. It is aligned with the Python community to solve specific problems outlined here: https://docs.modular.com/mojo/why-mojo.html Mojo also has a bunch of technical a…

> Julia is far more mature and advanced in many ways. Many folks have and will continue to push Julia forward and we wish them the best, it is a lovely ecosystem and language. There is room for more than one thing! :) In general this tends to be true. However, in this case I'm not so sure. Modular seems to have garnered a lot of investment - probably orders of magnitude more than the Julia community has been able to…

Julia is doing quite well for such a young language, lets not forget how many decades it took for Python to actually matter beyond OS scripting.

https://juliahub.com/case-studies/

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#184

Post by pjmlp »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #161
Joky wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They claim they are writing the actual kernel code (as in the implementation of a matmul) with it, and it was presented as a "system programming language": this goes far beyond "high-level tasks" it seems.

You can write kernels in a language with a GC. You just write kernels that don't allocate.

Alternatively have the GC as an OS service.

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#185

Post by pjmlp »

dermesser wrote: post #98
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.

This is not true at all! Julia usually being JIT-compiled makes it very unsuitable for real time applications (and there's no reason why it should be great for it). GC is the least issue here, and I say that as a fan and daily user of Julia.

A JIT works perfectly alright for real time applications, PTC and Aicas are still in business.

What matters is how it is implemented, naturally a general purpose one won't do it.

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#186

Post by pjmlp »

nmsmith wrote: post #144
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tree based structures with root ownership are very constrained as general purpose data structure.

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#187

Post by pjmlp »

nojonestownpls wrote: post #112

This is the final nail in the coffin for "Julia as a replacement for Python" in my eyes. Maybe I'm very late to that conclusion, maybe the writing's been on the wall for a while, but I still held out hope that Julia could be at least a parallel peer to Python sharing the market. But now, it seems almost certain that Julia will end up a possible replacement-for-Matlab niche language, unknown and unused by most outside…

Julia is doing alright, https://juliahub.com/case-studies/

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#188

Post by notfed »

revelio wrote: post #181
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…

So what's the business model then?

Do programming languages need business models?

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#189

Post by xigoi »

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?

So that people trying out the language have the freedom know what they're running on their computer.

Re: Mojo – a new programming language for AI developers

#190

Post by [deleted] »

Vox_Leone wrote: post #84
minhazm wrote: post #42

Is this closed source? I just assumed that a new programming language would be open source but I don't see any links to GitHub or any other place. The getting started page also requires you to put in your name and contact information.

>Is this closed source? I just assumed that a new programming language would be open source but I don't see any links to GitHub or any other place. Well, by the number of 3rd party domains you have to allow to see the info it does not look free or OS...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN