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

Mojo 1.0 Beta

mojolang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 252 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#31

Post by victorio »

modeless wrote: post #4

When I first heard about Mojo I somehow got the impression that they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code. But it seems like they are very far away from that for the foreseeable future. I guess you can call back and forth between Python and Mojo but Mojo itself can't run existing Python code.

From the site:

Python interop > Mojo natively interoperates with Python so you can eliminate performance bottlenecks in existing code without rewriting everything. You can start with one function, and scale up as needed to move performance-critical code into Mojo. Your Mojo code imports naturally into Python and packages together for distribution. Likewise, you can import libraries from the Python ecosystem into your Mojo code.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#33

Post by kjsingh »

modeless wrote: post #4

When I first heard about Mojo I somehow got the impression that they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code. But it seems like they are very far away from that for the foreseeable future. I guess you can call back and forth between Python and Mojo but Mojo itself can't run existing Python code.

isn't that achieved by Codon?

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#34

Post by dtj1123 »

modeless wrote: post #4

When I first heard about Mojo I somehow got the impression that they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code. But it seems like they are very far away from that for the foreseeable future. I guess you can call back and forth between Python and Mojo but Mojo itself can't run existing Python code.

They also advertised a 36,000x speedup over equivalent Python if I remember correctly, without at any point clarifying that this could only be true in extreme edge cases. Feels more like a pump-dump cryptography scheme than an honest attempt to improve the Python ecosystem.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#36

Post by smartmic »

Advertising prominently with "AI native" seems necessary today, at least for some folks. To me, that's kind of off-putting, since it doesn't really say anything.

Can anyone of the AI enthusiasts here explain, why, or, what is meant by

> As a compiled, statically-typed language, it's also ideal for agentic programming.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#37

Post by frizlab »

kstrauser wrote: post #29
runarberg wrote: post #18

I am actually on a lookout for a low level language which compiles to web assembly to write a (relatively small) supervised learning model which I plan to be good enough for 5 year old phone CPUs. I have a working prototype in Julia and was planning on (eventually) rewrite it in Rust mostly for the web assembly target. I come from a high level language background so the thought of rewriting in rust is a little daunti…

I’ve written Python for the past 25 years or so. I dig it. But I don’t think I’ve started a new Python project since starting to experiment with Rust. A lot (not all!, but a lot ) of Rust patterns look a lot like Python if you squint at it just right. I also think that writing lots of Rust has made me better at writing Python. The things Rust won’t let you get away with are things you shouldn’t be doing almost anywhe…

If you’re searching for a language that has the same strong memory safety than rust but is a bit easier to write, you should give Swift a go.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#38

Post by rmnclmnt »

smartmic wrote: post #36

Advertising prominently with "AI native" seems necessary today, at least for some folks. To me, that's kind of off-putting, since it doesn't really say anything. Can anyone of the AI enthusiasts here explain, why, or, what is meant by > As a compiled, statically-typed language, it's also ideal for agentic programming.

Because a coding agent (when instructed well) will try to make a piece of code work in a loop. Static typing and compilation help in the process (no more undefined variables discovered at runtime for instance). But that’s not bullet proof at all as most of us know

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#39

Post by jpnc »

smartmic wrote: post #36

Advertising prominently with "AI native" seems necessary today, at least for some folks. To me, that's kind of off-putting, since it doesn't really say anything. Can anyone of the AI enthusiasts here explain, why, or, what is meant by > As a compiled, statically-typed language, it's also ideal for agentic programming.

It's been really interesting to see all the desperation on hero pages for all these products and services ever since AI came into prominence. I think the funniest for me was opening IBM DB2 product page and seeing it labeled as 'AI database'. Hysterical.

> why, or, what is meant by More errors caught at compile time means an agent can quickly check their work statically without unit and other tests.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#40

Post by Reubend »

smartmic wrote: post #36

Advertising prominently with "AI native" seems necessary today, at least for some folks. To me, that's kind of off-putting, since it doesn't really say anything. Can anyone of the AI enthusiasts here explain, why, or, what is meant by > As a compiled, statically-typed language, it's also ideal for agentic programming.

I don't know what they meant by it, and I share your opinion that "AI native" is somewhat meaningless for a programming language like this.

Regarding compilation and static typing, it's extremely helpful to be able to detect issues at compile time when doing agentic programming. That way, you don't run into as many problems at runtime, which of course the agent has more difficulty addressing. Unit tests can help bridge the gap somewhat but not entirely.

What's not stated on their website is that Mojo is likely a bad choice for agentic programming simply because there isn't much Mojo training data yet.

Post reply on HN