Both C and Python are open source. I can't take Mojo seriously until it does the same.
I was taken aback by the sign up to try it out.
Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
21–30 of 59 posts
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I know from the news is they have a marketing team that decided to jump on the AI hype bandwagon. Plus the aforementioned outlandish performance claims. Unfortunately marketing like this tends to trigger an equal and opposite reaction in me. Anyone with AI programming experience can comment on whether they have made any specific believable claims about performance?
If it wasn't for Chris Lattner I'd put Mojo in the same bucket as V thanks to said dissociated marketing team
Hey, V and R are nice language names. How do you search for them with the current engines?
And that company… whatsitsname… X?
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#23Both C and Python are open source. I can't take Mojo seriously until it does the same.
C isn't open source. To make a conforming C compiler, someone has to buy the ISO C standard (208 CHF), which other folks will then spend development resources in creating C compilers that obey said standard. The biggest open source compilers, clang and GCC, only keep being up to date with ISO C, because of the money from IBM, Red-Hat, Apple, ARM, Intel, Green-Hills,... place in assigning company resources to work on…
What the OP meant is that there are (multiple!) open source C compilers, which you agree is the case.
Questions about the standard/specification are a different matter:
1. Whether the language has one? (Many languages, both open source and proprietary don't! I believe mojo doesn't have one?)
2. Whether it's available for free (gratis)?
3. Whether it's under a free (libre) license that allows redistribution with modifications?
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#24The thing about Mojo is that the part they spend most of their time promoting in their online material (Python but faster and good for AI) doesn't seem to require a new language at all, but rather a new hardware-aware Python compiler and some extra library modules. It sure looks like they only turned it into a new language because they wanted to add static typing and immutable references, which maybe you care about a…
Those new language constructs are exactly what's enabling the performance gains, by giving reliable information to the compiler. Projects like numba have clearly demonstrated the limitations of trying to compile pure Python.
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#25Both C and Python are open source. I can't take Mojo seriously until it does the same.
C isn't open source. To make a conforming C compiler, someone has to buy the ISO C standard (208 CHF), which other folks will then spend development resources in creating C compilers that obey said standard. The biggest open source compilers, clang and GCC, only keep being up to date with ISO C, because of the money from IBM, Red-Hat, Apple, ARM, Intel, Green-Hills,... place in assigning company resources to work on…
What development resources is green hills contributing to GCC or clang? As far as I know, they don't actively develop either, aside from selling a completely unrelated compiler that used to be called "gcc" long before the Gnu compiler ever used that name. They also haven't meaningfully participated in the mailing lists under their company name.
In any case, it's my understanding that the C standards have largely been community driven efforts that formalized things already being done by major compilers like Gnu rather than driven by the technical needs of industry the way C++ has.
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#26A new closed source programming language sounds like such a losing strategy.
Looking at the Mojo examples it seems like some kind of a superset of Python with lower language features. So you get C like performances if you’re willing to manipulate C like concepts. Truly revolutionary.
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#27Most bottlenecks are IO. "speed" is rarely as important as it's marketed to be. Also rust shared libraries are already there for pretty much every language that you actually need speed
Found the Ruby on Rails take from 2012.
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#28No one should be permitted to make money from software development tooling in ways I don't approve of.
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#29Chris Lattner seems like a great guy in interviews and has obviously mad multiple incredbile contributions to the field of software.
But I don't get the play here - a company CEO/cofounder bragging about the performance of a proprietary language which nobody can use right now? Who wants this?
Make the language and make it public and open; get large companies on board with development, start some useful real-world projects, involve the open-source community, show that it's actually good for something instead of giving investor presentations.
Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C
#30There are two undeniable facts: 1) the Python ecosystem has gone exponential. Its only really comparable to javascript in ubiquity but arguably addresses a much bigger problem space: it represents the closest to democratization of information processing since spreadsheets but with enormously wider applicability. 2) the computing hardware landscape that will enable the next stage of widely distributed information processing is a complete mess. Very difficult to utilize fully, monumental lock-in, etc.
Modular put 1+2 together and came with a proposal. Whether the rest will be history depends not so much on their technical ability to deliver but how they position this versus the vast potential user community. So far they follow a carefully choreographed VC driven marketing playbook that is kinda distasteful. Its not clear if this is a case of the end goal justifying the means.
People crying loudly for "open source" are on the one hand an indication of the governance and incentives challenges lying ahead. On the other hand they don't seem to be volunteering the massive salary spend that is required to move this mountain.
Minimally, this project helps outline what "good looks like" in this domain. If they fail to change the world there is always other talented people to try to retrace the path without taking the wrong turns.