A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
viralinstruction.com
A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
1–10 of 124 posts
Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#2Crystal was never able to find traction as a Ruby clone that could compete with C speeds. Why would a Python clone have any better luck? I don’t think anyone would accuse Python of being dramatically more usable than Ruby.
Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#3As someone who practices bioinformatics, it doesn’t seem appealing. Bioinformatics is like 0.1% dealing with FASTQ files and the rest is using the ecosystem of libraries for statistics and plotting. Many of them in R, by the way.
Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#4Crystal was never able to find traction as a Ruby clone that could compete with C speeds. Why would a Python clone have any better luck? I don’t think anyone would accuse Python of being dramatically more usable than Ruby.
I think the appeal with Crystal is for users who already know Ruby, so the marked was already limited there.
Crystal itself is a gem, but comparing it to Mojo and its relation to Python is fair but gives the wrong message. Python is by far more popular becuse of all the packages, so the market is way larger there.
Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#5Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#6Crystal was never able to find traction as a Ruby clone that could compete with C speeds. Why would a Python clone have any better luck? I don’t think anyone would accuse Python of being dramatically more usable than Ruby.
Crystal didn't have much use in ruby's sweet spot—being a DSL for some immensely complicated-to-configure framework (eg rails, chef).
Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#7>>> As a bioinformatician who is obsessed with high-performance, high-level programming, that's right in my wheelhouse!... Mojo currently only runs on Ubuntu and MacOS, and I run neither. So, I can't run any Mojo code
1. Back to the rust vs mojo article that kicked this off... this isnt someone who is going to use rust.
2. Availably, portability, ease of use... These are the reasons python is winning.
3. I am baffled that this person has to write code as part of their job, and does not know what a VM is! Note: This isnt a slight against the author, I doubt they are an isolated case. I think this is my own cognitive dissonance showing.
Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#8Crystal was never able to find traction as a Ruby clone that could compete with C speeds. Why would a Python clone have any better luck? I don’t think anyone would accuse Python of being dramatically more usable than Ruby.
Crystal is an entirely different language with a similar syntax. Valid Python is valid Mojo
Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#9Another point of clarification that is of great importance to the results, and is a common Rust newcomer error: The benchmarks for the Rust implementation (in the original post that got all the traction) were run with a /debug/ build of rust, i.e. not an optimized binary compiled with --release.
So it was comparing something that a) didn't do meaningful parsing against b) the full parsing rust implementation in a non-optimized debug build.
Re: A look at the Mojo language for bioinformatics
#10I felt like I learned more about the author than Mojo.
- Never actually runs it. Seriously.
- Wants us to know it's definitely not a real parser as compared to Needlepoint...then 1000 words later, "real parser" means "handles \r\n...and validates 1st & 3rd lines begin with @ and +...seq and qual lines have the same length".
- At the end, "Julia is faster!!!!" off a one-off run on their own machine, comparing it to benchmark times on the Mojo website
It reads as an elaborate way to indicate they don't like that the Mojo website says it's faster, coupled to a entry-level explanation of why it is faster, coupled to disturbingly poor attempts to benchmark without running Mojo code