121–130 of 134 posts
Related, Reuters reported the deal a few days ago, valued at $4b: https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/qualcomm-nearing...
I call BS, zero chance this traded at $4B. The fact they describe it as a "chip company" shouldn't give confidence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not really sure if Mojo has lost or not, but the community has felt quite different than other language communities I have encountered. The development feels less organic and more driven by venture capital. This is most acutely felt in the current closed source development of mojo itself, which seems like it will continue into the near future. I look forward to seeing open source mojo and the community that will…
> The development feels less organic and more driven by venture capital The development has been driven by the needs of Modular. > This is most acutely felt in the current closed source development of mojo itself Mojo compiler is closed, the language development is quite open. Some of the proposed changes have been shelved or tweaked based on community feedback. However, you should understand that the compiler is clo…
I'll gladly put $1000 in escrow as a bet that it never reaches more than 1% on literally any index of your choosing (TIOBE or whatever)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I get what you mean and I should have been more precise in my wording. I didn't mean that an alien language that looks nothing like we have ever seen but for the sake of doing it "right" from scratch would have been a good idea. A new programming language definitely should steal the ideas of other languages that turned out to be good. But Mojo also adopted some of the arguably bad ideas from Python just becau…
> what kind of programming language would a person with as much experience and good taste as Chris Lattner come up with if there were no such external pressures? Swift
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The founders won the lottery, the language most likely will never make mainstream.
Ha! I think whether Mojo will make mainstream or not is already a forgone conclusion. It solves too much of a technical problem to be niche. To me, it is a matter of when... not if.
so the most notoriously patent oriented tech firm is buying this up. lol ;) good for the founders. also explains why my resume got dropped on the floor as a desk reject :p
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why you say that? Nuvia made a massively great success with Oryon CPUs which are now all over the place.
Hasn't pretty much everyone from Nuvia left QC at this point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I get what you mean and I should have been more precise in my wording. I didn't mean that an alien language that looks nothing like we have ever seen but for the sake of doing it "right" from scratch would have been a good idea. A new programming language definitely should steal the ideas of other languages that turned out to be good. But Mojo also adopted some of the arguably bad ideas from Python just becau…
> But Mojo also adopted some of the arguably bad ideas from Python Like what?
Then there's "foo if cond else bar" which is Python's kind of ternary operator and it's at least slightly contentious. One could argue if a language even needs such a construct, but at least for me, I have an easier time reading the control flow when I look at "cond ? foo : bar". It gets even worse when you nest that stuff, although that's something you shouldn't do anyway. For more, see https://mojolang.org/docs/manual/control-flow/#conditional-e...
Also, indentation based syntax... well, it's a choice. I don't know if Lattner would have chose that in a language that he would have designed to his liking from scratch. For more, see https://mojolang.org/docs/reference/compound-statements/
Then there is some scoping related badness from Python that I think is really awful. In Python and Mojo (with a caveat) you can do this:
if cond:
foo = 42
print(foo)
But earlier, I was talking about a caveat in Mojo, so it's slightly less awful, because the compiler would complain in the code example above that "foo" might be uninitialized when getting to the print statement, so that's at least something nice, where the static type system prevents stupid mistakes that function-level scoping makes possible. To be fair, all the serious type checkers for Python would catch this as well.
But I hope you get the idea. Those are things I highly doubt would have made it into the language if Lattner could have designed it to his liking from scratch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried, also all a little while ago, really found the puzzles fun to do and then tried to implement some basic radar pipeline things and found lots of just basic 'building blocks' for signal processing (i/o things, fft) were missing to the point I went back to JAX. I'm still not manage memory on GPU the way I would like, but mojo (or, my ignorant first stab at it) did not let me exploit direct DMA type things anyway…
What radar pipelines are you working on (out of pure curiosity here)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But Mojo also adopted some of the arguably bad ideas from Python Like what?
The "else" after a for-loop that executes only when the loop completely finished without a "break" or "return". While maybe a nice concept in general, using "else" for this is only to look familiar to Python programmers. The "else" word itself is really counter intuitive here in my opinion. For more, see https://mojolang.org/docs/manual/control-flow/#for-loop-cont... Then there's "foo if cond else bar" which is Pytho…
I think the trinary op in Python is way superior to Cs, and I came to Python from C.
The variable that was never declared when you hit is bad too yea, but I don't think block level scoping is any good. Pythons rule of having just two scopes (mostly) is imo the sane thing to do. Every single block adding a scope is just chaos, and C++ really screws this up with implicit this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mojo compiler will be open in August.
TODO: license-wash via LLM