31–40 of 59 posts
Eg will Django/Flask/FastAPI run significantly fast on Mojo than Python as-is?
Most 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
> Most bottlenecks are IO For web apps perhaps. They're not in that domain. In other domains IO is not the problem, CPU is. > Also rust shared libraries are already there for pretty much every language that you actually need speed Given that the whole selling point of this is to not have to use two languages, that's kind of irrelevant to this.
Not even for web apps. You should see how much CPU time a python web app spends doing simple things like filling an html template.
Chris 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 pro…
It’s Open Source code, but closed to contributions.
That would solve a lot of their problems because it allows them to show it’s open source, but not take contributions until they feel like it’s ready to get contributions from 3rd parties.
Chris 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 pro…
> Why not develop Mojo in the open from the beginning?
> Mojo is a big project and has several architectural differences from previous languages. We believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision can move faster than a community effort. This development approach is also well-established from other projects that are now open source (such as LLVM, Clang, Swift, MLIR, etc.).
Given Chris Latners previous achievements I think we can trust this call a bit more than we may with some companies.
I wouldn't use it myself until open sourced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've also claimed both on the page and in the podcast that certain testing reveals a 68,000x speed up vs Python. That's probably true in a select case, but this is why you use libraries in Python - to make use of all the hard work that already exists in C/C++ in those libraries, with Python serving as a high level and far easier to write functional wrapper. Ie anyone serious about performance isn't going to be loo…
> That's probably true in a select case, but this is why you use libraries in Python - to make use of all the hard work that already exists in C/C++ in those libraries, with Python serving as a high level and far easier to write functional wrapper. Yes, but that's also the issue they address. That you cant just write plain Python for something not covered by libraries and have it be fast. You need to then mess with e…
Chris 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 pro…
From the FAQs https://docs.modular.com/mojo/faq.html > Why not develop Mojo in the open from the beginning? > Mojo is a big project and has several architectural differences from previous languages. We believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision can move faster than a community effort. This development approach is also well-established from other projects that are now open source (such as LLVM, Clang…
Both 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…
I would debate that.
1. The C language spec isn't code, open source is only concerned with the code.
2. Philosophically, I would say that if you can write and compile standards conforming c code on an open source compiler, and the standard is freely available then to all intents and purposes C is open. It isn't as if GCC doesn't know what the standard is, it isn't as if they can't describe GCC as a c compiler.
It's like saying a bsd or Linux isn't unix, just because they haven't paid some fee.
Chris 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 pro…
From the FAQs https://docs.modular.com/mojo/faq.html > Why not develop Mojo in the open from the beginning? > Mojo is a big project and has several architectural differences from previous languages. We believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision can move faster than a community effort. This development approach is also well-established from other projects that are now open source (such as LLVM, Clang…
The 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…