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

Mojo is now open source

modular.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: Mojo is now open source

#41

Post by archargelod »

pjmlp wrote: post #38
archargelod wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inferior to languages that compile to native binaries, not burning dramatically more cpu cycles than necessary.

Showing your ignorance regarding Java and C# ecosystems and available compilers on that reply.

I indeed don't know about Java, but with C# there are a lot of limitations if you want AOT compilation and you still get the bloated binary and limited performance.

I also, personally, never seen a single project written in either Java or C# that distributes aot binaries.

Re: Mojo is now open source

#43

Post by andsoitis »

melodyogonna wrote: post #29
vovavili wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The innovative potential of Mojo would be constrained to relatively niche and senior dev circles until they get a Windows release, which probably won't happen anytime soon. Python keeps the throne for now.

I don't understand this premise. And the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. On the grand scale of things, Windows is the niche platform here. For consumer desktop use cases, it is king, but nobody deploys on it for the use cases that the first version of Mojo is optimised for.

> On the grand scale of things, Windows is the niche platform here.

They plan Windows support: ” Mojo has supported macOS and Linux for years, and Windows developers have been able to use it through WSL. Native Windows support has always been one of our most common requests from developers.

Millions of developers build on Windows every day, across an enormous range of applications and workloads. We believe Mojo can have a meaningful impact across that ecosystem. Bringing Mojo to Windows the right way requires deep expertise in the platform, which is why we’re delighted that the Microsoft Windows team sees the same opportunity we do — and that we’re working together to make it happen.”

—- https://www.modular.com/blog/modcon-announcements

Re: Mojo is now open source

#44

Post by andsoitis »

Love this intentionality: ” Our open source approach has been deliberate: we’ve found that small and tight-knit design teams (not committees) are the best for finding the “soul” of a language, but that feedback from a broader community is essential to escape an echo chamber. As such, we first open-sourced the Mojo standard library, then released hundreds of thousands of lines of kernel code written in Mojo, tools, and support. We built together with community feedback and public design proposals, and are now open sourcing the compiler. We will continue to open our processes further as Mojo keeps maturing.”

Re: Mojo is now open source

#45

Post by pjmlp »

melodyogonna wrote: post #29
vovavili wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The innovative potential of Mojo would be constrained to relatively niche and senior dev circles until they get a Windows release, which probably won't happen anytime soon. Python keeps the throne for now.

I don't understand this premise. And the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. On the grand scale of things, Windows is the niche platform here. For consumer desktop use cases, it is king, but nobody deploys on it for the use cases that the first version of Mojo is optimised for.

Many companies only allow for Windows computers, even if the servers are UNIX like, additionally as proven by NVidia and CUDA, Windows laptops are a great way to get students interested on the technology.

Re: Mojo is now open source

#46

Post by pjmlp »

solarkraft wrote: post #28
vovavili wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The innovative potential of Mojo would be constrained to relatively niche and senior dev circles until they get a Windows release, which probably won't happen anytime soon. Python keeps the throne for now.

The niche is so big that Microsoft invented WSL to run Linux programs on Windows.

We already could do that with VMWare Workstation and VirtualBox, since at least 2010.

WSL could have been avoided if Microsoft had been more serious about the POSIX subsystem in Windows NT, or later Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications that was available until 2016.

Re: Mojo is now open source

#47

Post by pjmlp »

archargelod wrote: post #41
pjmlp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Showing your ignorance regarding Java and C# ecosystems and available compilers on that reply.

I indeed don't know about Java, but with C# there are a lot of limitations if you want AOT compilation and you still get the bloated binary and limited performance. I also, personally, never seen a single project written in either Java or C# that distributes aot binaries.

You mean bloated as Go, the superior language?

The limited performance of game engines like the one used by Capcom for Devil May Cry on the Playstation 5?

Java binaries deployed in embedded systems by PTC and Aicas are AOT compiled.

Re: Mojo is now open source

#48

Post by jondea »

dlahoda wrote: post #12
totalperspectiv wrote: post #3

This is really exciting. I've been using Mojo off and on for side projects over the last two years. (copying from some previous Mojo threads) It's got an ownership system adjacent to Rust, comptime similar to Zig, and a first class dependent type system. Even more exciting, is that uses LLVM (to the best of my understanding) in some novel ways and for more optimizations.

Hm, in docs they say that dependent type system is not first class seems. Is it even dependent? More like refinement types, which seems will be in Rust too.Also HN recently mentioned Rust building similar llvm based integration with GPU. But compared with Python, Julia, Matlab, R, Rust, C, C++ - Mojo feel relief for working with numerics.

I don't agree at all with your last paragraph. MATLAB and Julia are lovely for numerics, maths is terse and looks like maths! Mojo is hobbled by choosing Python style syntax, which does not lend itself well to maths.

WRT the type system, I agree MATLAB is a mess but Julia's multiple dispatch feels more like maths than any other language I've tried.

Re: Mojo is now open source

#49

Post by markkitti »

archargelod wrote: post #34
rirze wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a sad time to be a fan of Julia-- everyone forgets it's there.

I was excited to try Julia, but then, as I saw it was an interpreted language, with bulky runtime, slow startup times and bloated library sizes - my initial interest quickly faded. For the same reasons I see languages like Python, Java, C# as inferior.

How is Julia an interpreted language? I sometimes wish there was a robust interpreter for Julia when the compilation latency is not worth the execution speed.
Post reply on HN