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

41–50 of 252 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#41

Post by vga1 »

IceDane wrote: post #32
thefounder wrote: post #30

Does it have the indentation thing? That would be a no go for a lot of people

Only incredibly inexperienced people think indentation in python is a problem.

I have tons of experience with python, possibly more actual work experience than any other language, and I do think the indentation is a bit of a problem. Obviously not a huge one, but still something I wished they had done differently. Because I like to have a robust format-on-save wired into my editor, and you just cannot quite have that when indentation is meaningful.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#42

Post by runarberg »

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…

I actually have written Rust, but it has been a minute. I think my last project (a backend for a massive online multiplayer theremin jam session [site no longer up; but HN discussion still exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10875211] 10 years ago).

I remember Rust very fondly in fact. And I had the same experience as you, learning Rust made me a better Javascript programmer. Lets see if a little neural network can be as fun.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#43

Post by Timot05 »

I’m relatively new to programming but I wish they had used a functional language syntax rather than an object oriented one as the basis for mojo.

From my experience, AI revolves a lot around building up function pipelines, computing their derivatives, and passing tons of data through them; which composability and higher order functions from functional programming make it a breeze to describe.

I also feel that other fields than AI are moving towards building up large functional pipelines to produce outputs, which would make mojo suitable for those fields as well. I’m building in the space of CAD for example and I’d love to use a “functional mojo” language.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#44

Post by boxed »

Reubend wrote: post #40
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 brid…

I've recently used Claude to write quite a bit of mojo (https://github.com/boxed/TurboKod) and I can quite confidently say that Claude will write deprecated mojo syntax a lot, but the compiler tells it and it fixes it pretty fast too. The only reason I notice is that I look at Claude while it's working and I see the compilation warnings (and sometimes Claude is lazy and doesn't compile so I have to see it).

But yea, to write mojo 1.0 code even after getting errors might take a new training round, so next or even next-next models.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#45

Post by arikrahman »

Timot05 wrote: post #43

I’m relatively new to programming but I wish they had used a functional language syntax rather than an object oriented one as the basis for mojo. From my experience, AI revolves a lot around building up function pipelines, computing their derivatives, and passing tons of data through them; which composability and higher order functions from functional programming make it a breeze to describe. I also feel that other f…

I'm in the same boat, this would've been in the family of the first language that neural nets and AI were created with back decades ago, Lisp. Coming from the awesome project of Swift, which to their credit, was a massive undertaking to convince Apple execs, I was still hoping for a functional language approach like Haskell with the practicality of Clojure.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#46

Post by chillfox »

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 really consider myself an “AI enthusiasts”, but I do use it.

So, agents tend to do better the more feedback they can get. Type checking is pretty good for catching a bunch of dumb mistakes automatically.

The point is more hints for the agent is more better most of the time.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#47

Post by boxed »

dtj1123 wrote: post #34
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.

Well... the article made self deprecating fun of the click bait title, showed the code every step of the way, and actually did achieve the claim (albeit with wall clock time, not CPU/GPU time).

And it wasn't "equivalent python", whatever that means, they did loop unrolling and SIMD and stuff. That can't be done in pure python at all, so there literally is no equivalent python.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#48

Post by runarberg »

evertheylen wrote: post #21
logicchains wrote: post #8

Very bold of them expecting people to use a language with a closed source compiler in the 2020s.

If you're looking for a language that aims to solve the "two-language problem" like Mojo, but want something more open, more mature and less influenced by VC funding, check out Julia: https://julialang.org/

I used Julia a lot when I was studying statistics (which I dropped out of) back in 2015, but I recently (like last weekend) came back to it to write a prototype of a supervised learning model, and I have to say, coming back to it was pure joy. And my model prototype was indeed fast enough for me.

Now I will probably rewrite the model in rust if I want to do anything with it (mostly for the web assembly target as I want this thing to run in browsers) but I will for sure be using Julia for further experimentation. Lovely language.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#50

Post by melodyogonna »

fibonacci112358 wrote: post #22

Sadly for them, Nvidia didn't stay still in the meantime and created the next generation of CUDA, CuTile for Python and soon for C++, through CUDA Tile IR (using a similar compiler stack based on MLIR). Event though it's not portable, it will likely have far greater usage than Mojo just by being heavely promoted by Nvidia, integrated in dev tools and working alongside existing CUDA code. Tile IR was more likely a res…

People keep mistaking Mojo as good syntax for writing GPU code, and so imagine Nvidia's Python frameworks already do that. But... would CuTile work on AMD GPUs and Apple Silicon? Whatever Nvidia does will still have vendor lock-in.
Post reply on HN