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

Mojo 1.0 Beta

mojolang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 252 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#151

Post by simplyvibecode »

pansa2 wrote: post #52
modeless wrote: post #4

When I first heard about Mojo I somehow got the impression that they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code. But it seems like they are very far away from that for the foreseeable future. I guess you can call back and forth between Python and Mojo but Mojo itself can't run existing Python code.

> they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code That was the original claim, but it was quietly removed from the website. (Did they fall for the common “Python is a simple language” misconception?). Now they promise I can “write like Python”, but don’t even support fundamentals like classes (which are part of stage 3 of the roadmap, but they’re still working on stage 1). Maybe Mojo will achieve all it…

[dead]

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#152

Post by simplyvibecode »

totalperspectiv wrote: post #147
taylorallred wrote: post #122

I know Mojo is aimed at ML, but I'm actually really interested in trying it for game development :)

Me too! I've been using it for bioinformatics related work, and it is absolutely fantastic. I can't wait for it to hit fully open source status so it can be easily recommended.

Full open source Mojo 1.0 coming this fall!

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#153

Post by jasonjmcghee »

geodel wrote: post #107
sureglymop wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mojo is cool but I just don't understand the python backwards compat thing. They're holding themselves back with that. All the flaws I can think of in Kotlin are due to the Java compatibility. They could've made it work here by being more explicit but the way it currently works seems doomed.

> All the flaws I can think of in Kotlin are due to the Java compatibility. All the use of Kotlin in industry are due to Java compatibility. Else there would be ~0% marketshare of Kotlin.

There is unfortunately likely a lot of truth to this. I like Kotlin, but, anecdotally, I've only ever chosen it due to needing JVM

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#155

Post by dtj1123 »

boxed wrote: post #47
dtj1123 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also advertised a 36,000x speedup over equivalent Python if I remember correctly, without at any point clarifying that this could only be true in extreme edge cases. Feels more like a pump-dump cryptography scheme than an honest attempt to improve the Python ecosystem.

Well... the article made self deprecating fun of the click bait title, showed the code every step of the way, and actually did achieve the claim (albeit with wall clock time, not CPU/GPU time). And it wasn't "equivalent python", whatever that means, they did loop unrolling and SIMD and stuff. That can't be done in pure python at all, so there literally is no equivalent python.

Watch Chris Lattner's interview with Lex Fridman. He talks about mojo as a 36,000x speedup over Python without any indication that you need to think about vectorization to achieve it.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#156

Post by IshKebab »

kstrauser wrote: post #93
adev_ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Python cuTile JIT compiler allows writing CUDA kernels in straight Python. It is currently not straight Python and will never be. All these "Performance friendly" python dialects (Tryton, Pythran, CuTile, Numba, Pycell, cuPy, ...) appears like Python but are nothing like Python as soon as you scratch the surface. They are DSL with a python-looking syntax but made to be optimized, typed and inferred properly. And it…

> All these "Performance friendly" python dialects (Tryton, Pythran, CuTile, Numba, Pycell, cuPy, ...) appears like Python but are nothing like Python as soon as you scratch the surface. Which is the whole point. Python has properties that make it bad for massive, fast number twiddling. However, it’s exceptionally nice for doing all the command line parsing and file loading and setup and other wrapping tasks required…

I wouldn't call it "exceptionally nice". Decentish if you use uv & strict Pyright... sure.

> most Python code spends a huge chunk of its time waiting for other code to execute.

Highly dependent on what you are doing. That hasn't been my experience most of the time.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#157

Post by ssivark »

runarberg wrote: post #48
evertheylen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're looking for a language that aims to solve the "two-language problem" like Mojo, but want something more open, more mature and less influenced by VC funding, check out Julia: https://julialang.org/

I used Julia a lot when I was studying statistics (which I dropped out of) back in 2015, but I recently (like last weekend) came back to it to write a prototype of a supervised learning model, and I have to say, coming back to it was pure joy. And my model prototype was indeed fast enough for me. Now I will probably rewrite the model in rust if I want to do anything with it (mostly for the web assembly target as I wa…

> mostly for the web assembly target

Funny you should say that... there was recently a very interesting announcement for a Julia-to-WASM compiler and a full-stack signals-based web framework:

https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ann-experimental-wasmtarge...

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#158

Post by IshKebab »

physicsguy wrote: post #142
ktm5j wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure that's true.. I can't think of a single Python dev I've worked with who cared about opensource. All they cared about is the language being easy and free to use.

The people that write the libraries care, why do you think Python is where we’re writing ML code and not MATLAB?

Because MATLAB isn't free to use...

(Among other reasons, but that's easily the main one.)

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#159

Post by zbentley »

physicsguy wrote: post #142
ktm5j wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure that's true.. I can't think of a single Python dev I've worked with who cared about opensource. All they cared about is the language being easy and free to use.

The people that write the libraries care, why do you think Python is where we’re writing ML code and not MATLAB?

Mojo is free, though. MATLAB costing money is a bigger issue than it being closed source. R was too late to the game and catered too much to professional math/stats/datascience people rather than programming generalists. Python (with native code interop) hit the sweet spot for breadth/accessibility to the market and capability.
Post reply on HN