Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Mojo has been primarily using AI-generated imagery of its mascot for several years now, which politically aligns with its pivot to being a language for AI development.
A lot of fancy words to say this is slop.
Mojo 1.0
111–120 of 172 posts
Re: Mojo 1.0
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, without significant indentation?
When has it ever been an issue in use? People complained about this in 1999 but then I used it and it's never mattered.
Re: Mojo 1.0
#113I feel like this language would really benefit from some sort of 1-pager overview. I just spent a fair bit of time on the official site, and I still don't think I have a very good grasp of what problem this language aims to solve, or why I would select it over other similar languages
It's supposed to be (currently) a fully native, Python-like language, but for GPUs primarily. Though I am seeing it as having a future as a fully native Python alternative that might get interesting. I hope with 1.0 (havent fully read the article yet) they stop breaking language features / syntax because they did quite a few different changes over time, their overall goal is to be a fully native superset of Python. I…
Not any more. That was the initial announcement, but I think then somebody actually looked at Python and realised what a complex language it is - so they refocused on being a Python-like language. Python has a reputation for being a simple language, but in reality it isn’t at all.
Re: Mojo 1.0
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh nooooo, they fucked it up too. Why would someone make a language that’s whitespace sensitive? It’s confounding.
I never understood this. What kind of special whitespace requirements do people have?
Functional-style programming has become much more popular since Python was designed in the 1990s, and there doesn’t seem to be a good way to have Python-like significant indentation and also support true anonymous functions.
Re: Mojo 1.0
#115I feel like this language would really benefit from some sort of 1-pager overview. I just spent a fair bit of time on the official site, and I still don't think I have a very good grasp of what problem this language aims to solve, or why I would select it over other similar languages
Re: Mojo 1.0
#116Don't see the value of using a language with a closed source compiler... Much better options out there. Python already has libraries like Pydantic that offload performance to functions written in Rust under the hood.
The value has already been materialized. They were acquired by Qualcomm for $3.9 billion.
OTOH Python itself is the world’s most popular programming language, yet has only recently had the money to support more than a single full-time developer.
Re: Mojo 1.0
#117Re: Mojo 1.0
#118Is Mojo being a superset of Python still part of its projected feature set? I tried Mojo a bit early on and decided to come back to it when it was more complete, and in the interim I read some comments somewhere that the superset-of-Python part was being walked back from. On https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/ it's stated (Phase 3) that "Mojo may or may not evolve into a full superset of Python, and it's okay if it do…
It absolutely was, but IMO was never going to happen. Python has a reputation as a simple language, but it really isn’t. It’s a very complex language hiding behind friendly syntax.
I think once the Mojo team realised that, they had to adjust their expectations.
Re: Mojo 1.0
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
The C compiler source came with the AT&T UNIX tape ... it wasn't open source because FOSS didn't exist at the time and it was under a proprietary license, but it was not "closed source". Parts of MOJO, OTOH, are closed source because the source has not been released (yet ... it apparently will be later this month).
That one yes, the ones sold by all UNIX clone vendors definitely not. In fact, GCC was largely ignored until Sun decided to split SunOS into two SKUs.
As I said, C was not "closed source", it was distributed with source under a proprietary license. And "all the UNIX clone vendors" didn't exist for years after the UNIX tape was first released. And they weren't "clones", they were enhanced supported versions of the AT&T system. I worked for nearly a decade for the first of those commercial UNIX vendors, ISC ... the other prominent ones were SCO and Wollongong. (Sun came along later, based on BSD UNIX, developed for the VAX and of course derived from AT&T UNIX ... none of these were "clones" ... the first of those was Minix, and then GNU/Linux). We all distributed UNIX with the AT&T C compiler. Eventually ISC wrote their own C compiler for IBM's AIX project because IBM always had special requirements ... I don't know whether we distributed the source or not.
But the point is that this was nothing like the situation with Mojo, which currently has not released the compiler source ... which is nothing like what people on this page are writing, because it will be open source SOON, probably coincident with the conference later this month.
I won't respond further about this.
Re: Mojo 1.0
#120I feel like this language would really benefit from some sort of 1-pager overview. I just spent a fair bit of time on the official site, and I still don't think I have a very good grasp of what problem this language aims to solve, or why I would select it over other similar languages
Feedback welcome as always and thanks for checking it out! Encourage you to watch ModCon next week for some exciting announcements :)