If you like C++, you're going to like Mojo (if you're looking for alternatives). Some of the semantics and designs are inspired by C++, but wrapped in a Python-like skin. The way to think about Mojo, when compared to Rust, is that it was designed by expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like. When I see Rust, I see designers who loved the functional programming paradigm and wanted to make a lot of the concept mainstream. This is why some of the semantics can seem awkward if you're coming from a procedural language
The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
51–60 of 121 posts
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#52I'm waiting for Phase 2[1]: especially "Algebraic data types & pattern matching". Current tagged union[2] use is pretty awkward/verbose and lacks exhaustiveness checking and typed error handling. [1] https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/#phase-2 [2] https://mojolang.org/docs/std/utils/variant/Variant/
Extensible trait support seems like another big one if the ecosystem is going to significantly grow. Not having clearly defined traits in the language made larger projects composing many libraries in Julia difficult.
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#53I would add quick note to this as title is misleading * It was partially open-sourced before this. There were a lot of cool things they open sourced before like MAX for large scale LLM serving which was outperforming VLLM, Dynamo, etc on a lot of models. (super valuable GPU kernels). This is why Qualcomm acquire them imo. * Chris (also created swift) talked in the past the reason for not fully open-sourcing was more…
When people talk about a language being open source they primarily mean the compiler. A closed compiler surrounded by a collection of open source things is an anti-pattern and trap to be avoided if you're interested in open tools, that's why open sourcing the Mojo compiler was so important to many people. > Chris (also created swift) talked in the past the reason for not fully open-sourcing was more because he wanted…
Chris literally was saying it from the very beginning (you can watch early interviews, obviously he was being asked about it), everything that happens with progressive opening is what he said he'll do and he gave rationale for it which is summarized by what parent comment says.
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#54I'm glad that it's open source now and they are supporting a lot more hardware. There are some interesting features that I hope the language design community pays attention to. It's built on top of MLIR so you can make compiler optimizations in a library instead of the compiler. I believe Reactant.jl has been using MLIR for optimizing higher level abstractions in Julia. Imagine a Lisp with that capability.
Mojo as MLIR++ is how I've thought about it as well.
Many users will find transpiling static python to mojo an interesting path.
Updating py2many --mojo to 1.0 to see what breaks.
Also looking forward to translating existing python adt module to mojo Variant in phase 2. I hope the mojo pattern matching proposal looks more like rust (expression) and not like python (statement).
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#55I would add quick note to this as title is misleading * It was partially open-sourced before this. There were a lot of cool things they open sourced before like MAX for large scale LLM serving which was outperforming VLLM, Dynamo, etc on a lot of models. (super valuable GPU kernels). This is why Qualcomm acquire them imo. * Chris (also created swift) talked in the past the reason for not fully open-sourcing was more…
> Chris (also created swift) talked in the past the reason for not fully open-sourcing was more because he wanted to get all the core design decisions right. He said this was a big thing Swift got wrong as it scaled too quickly being fully ope source at
I don't understand what open source has to do with this. People being able to see your source code doesn't somehow prevent you from changing it however you want. Yes, they can voice their opinion on it, but you can also just ignore it. Yes, they might write code that depends on things that could change, but until last week it wasn't even 1.0 anyhow, so it's not like stuff might not break for people even if they didn't do that. Why was the language even being marketed at all pre-1.0 if "scaling" too quickly is a genuine concern?
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that he (or his employer) just didn't really care about prioritizing making it open. That's totally fair, but being disingenuous about is not. It honestly just sounds like they didn't want to admit that they didn't care to prioritize being open source, and I think that has some potentially concerning implications for what to expect in terms of communication around the direction of the language and ecosystem in the future. The fact that it's being developed in the open now is good, but it doesn't seem like the actual decision making is, and that's a red flag.
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#56[ mojo explaining why they didn't create an embedded DSL]
> This is particularly problematic if you're trying to introduce fundamental new concepts because you can't change the grammar of Python or C++.
Yet, this is exactly the approach py2many is taking.
Keep it 99% python compatible. Deviate from the python grammar only for new features and where python made a decision incompatible with compiled language backends.
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#57Does this project have any meaningful traction? Seemed like a cool idea, but I wasn't even sure what problem does it solves. Looks like its completely missing from the regular discussion / news outlets. Every 1-2 years some barely visible post/article reminds me it even exists...
> But I wasn't even sure what problem does it solves. Looks like its completely missing from the regular discussion / news outlets. Every 1-2 years some barely visible post/article reminds me it even exists... At this point "developers" these days sound a lot more like consumers than those who actually do research on a tool that solves a problem. Ocaml is barely mentioned in the news and rarely HNers here use that la…
Jane Street's use of OCamel gives them a comparative advantage in hiring. Many devs put a premium on the tools they use. Same story with Anduril/Mercury using Haskell. You can run a successful prop trading firm/weapons design shop/startup-banking(?) platform without these things. They differentiate you from your competitors by being cool, not by being the best technical solution. If anything they were otherwise unprove at scale and out of pure engineering consideration a gamble. Developers are consumers.
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#58Mojo (owned by Qualcomm ®) is now open source™ try it! Just remember we own it
I'd rather have an established company give broad autonomy to PL developers at a loss (Go at Google, Swift at Apple) than risk eventual squeeze when VCs ask for their money back.
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#59I would add quick note to this as title is misleading * It was partially open-sourced before this. There were a lot of cool things they open sourced before like MAX for large scale LLM serving which was outperforming VLLM, Dynamo, etc on a lot of models. (super valuable GPU kernels). This is why Qualcomm acquire them imo. * Chris (also created swift) talked in the past the reason for not fully open-sourcing was more…
> He said this was a big thing Swift got wrong as it scaled too quickly being fully open source at the beginning
“Too soon”, I could believe, but “at the beginning”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_(programming_language):
“Development of Swift started in July 2010 by Chris Lattner, with the eventual collaboration of many other programmers at Apple”
and
“It was initially a proprietary language, but version 2.2 was made open-source software under the Apache License 2.0 on December 3, 2015”
Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source
#60If you like C++, you're going to like Mojo (if you're looking for alternatives). Some of the semantics and designs are inspired by C++, but wrapped in a Python-like skin. The way to think about Mojo, when compared to Rust, is that it was designed by expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like. When I see Rust, I see designers who loved the functional programming paradigm and wanted to make a…
Can you explain this in more detail? I'm not really familiar with Mojo but I can't think of obvious ways in which Rust's semantics (as opposed to syntax) are more functional than C++'s.