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

Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

stackoverflow.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

#41

Post by kbrkbr »

coldtea wrote: post #12
anakaine wrote: post #4

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…

Or you use numba [1]. Then you can use a subset of plain Python.

[1] https://numba.pydata.org/

Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

#42

Post by flohofwoe »

pjmlp wrote: post #20
grandma_tea wrote: post #2

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…

The C standard really isn't all that relevant in practice though, for instance the Microsoft C compiler had been trailing the standard by about 2 decades until quite recently but this didn't stop people from using it. Also most C code that's written to compile across gcc, clang and msvc most likely doesn't even build with -pedantic on gcc or clang.

(eg in practice C is more like a language family, with an attempt to standardize a common core feature set and syntax as an afterthought and call that a "standard" - it's good that it exists, but it's hardly relevant or even useful for real world projects)

Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

#43

Post by Hikikomori »

nottorp wrote: post #22
singularity2001 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How do you search for C?

Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

#44

Post by jabradoodle »

j_maffe wrote: post #37
jabradoodle wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FYI, your link 404's

Oops, fixed, thanks.

Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

#45

Post by taway1237 »

coldtea wrote: post #12
anakaine wrote: post #4

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…

Why is cython (python-like fast language) worse than mojo (python-like fast language)?

Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

#46

Post by nottorp »

Hikikomori wrote: post #43
nottorp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, V and R are nice language names. How do you search for them with the current engines? And that company… whatsitsname… X?

How do you search for C?

You type Rust and someone has rewritten the C application in it already.

In C’s defense it was made before search engines.

Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

#48

Post by goku12 »

nottorp wrote: post #22
singularity2001 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's quite easy for languages. You just append 'lang' or language to the name. Works even for single letter languages like C, D, R and V.

Re: Mojo: The usability of Python with the performance of C

#50

Post by pjmlp »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #25
pjmlp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their new compiler is a clang fork, they contribute at least to LLVM.
Post reply on HN