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

Mojo 1.0

modular.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 172 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0

#151

Post by jhbadger »

usef- wrote: post #94
steve1977 wrote: post #53

Earlier 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.

Have you never tried to paste python code from the internet into an editor? At least half the time the indentation is screwed up and I have to go in and figure out manually where to put the spaces in. Indentation gets screwed up by pasting in other languages too, but with those I can generally tell the editor to reindent and it can because the information is included in the source code.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#152

Post by refactor_master »

nylonstrung wrote: post #36
perarneng wrote: post #11

The main downside is that usually I only choose languages that the LLM is extremely good at. (however I avoid dynamically typed). But I hope they succeed, it's a very interesting approach. Then I will jump on it later on. S

The premise of Mojo used to be that it was a superset of Python so in theory LLMs would benefit from that but I'm not sure how much divergence there's been

Wouldn't that cause an awful lot of confusion in practice? Instead of having one being a superset of the other, you now have two almost identical syntaxes, but probably not quite.

LLMs have enough problems distinguishing between major versions between packages, e.g. where all the imports were moved around and renamed.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#153

Post by blltprfmnk »

twsted wrote: post #77

Nothing but respect for Chris, and I understand why founders take these deals. But an acquihire usually means the product is the part that gets left behind, and that's the part I cared about.

Well, there was $300M+ in VC money and after burning through some percentage of it those investors wanted an exit. I don’t think this is so much about founders taking a deal as it is investors demanding that exit.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#154

Post by jibal »

TylerE wrote: post #146
jibal wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about 4 months? Your "logic" seems to be that they are releasing it in 2026 and there are 4 more months in 2026 so they will be releasing it in 4 months. That's obviously flawed thinking. They will probably be releasing it coincident with their August 18 conference.

So why not either delay the 1.0 release by a week or move the open sourcing up by a week? This "strategy" makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know why you're responding to me ... I simply pointed out how ludicrous was the statement that it will be 4 months before it is released.

And intelligent imaginative people can make quite a bit of sense out of announcing 1.0 prior to the conference. Open sourcing it may require efforts that simply didn't coincide with that announcement. I see this sort of pronouncement in the chat for the chess.com daily puzzle all the time -- "the solution makes no sense!" ... and yet it always does.

P.S.

> "They will probably be releasing it coincident with their August 18 conference."

Yes, I know I wrote that, genius.

And no, I didn't ask a question, and that's not a rational explanation of why you responded. And I don't owe anyone an explanation of my attitude or tone. If you don't like it then don't interact with me.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#155

Post by [deleted] »

swiftcoder wrote: post #39

I 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

[deleted]

Re: Mojo 1.0

#156

Post by jshier »

burntcaramel wrote: post #150
mort96 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's categorically uninteresting until and unless that happens. Weird to release 1.0 without it. What are they waiting for?

From listening to Chris Lattner in interviews my guess it’s learning from when Swift became open source. The beta versions of Swift had massive language changes in how value types worked like with Array. Mojo is trying to get this language design locked down first, which is easier to do behind closed doors. A compiler promising source stability is a different commitment than the compiler’s code being ready for outsid…

That doesn't really make sense, as being open source really has nothing to do with whether the language has an open evolution process. And if they've already declared 1.0, then they've already decided they're stable, so the original point doesn't apply any more.

I feel like they're going to remain closed until Qualcomm is convinced they can't make any money from it being so.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#157

Post by sakesun »

swiftcoder wrote: post #39

I 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

Whoever behind the company communication have done an incredibly terrible job. They start with an extremely unnecessary polished Steve-Jobs-alike debut video when they have zero stuff to offer, while the founder name is already immensely trustworthy. Then follow with a very ugly AI-image-heavy website and blog posts, only to be reverted back to plain website later.

I'd love the language and platform be succesful, nevertheless.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#158

Post by TylerE »

jibal wrote: post #154
TylerE wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not either delay the 1.0 release by a week or move the open sourcing up by a week? This "strategy" makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know why you're responding to me ... I simply pointed out how ludicrous was the statement that it will be 4 months before it is released. And intelligent imaginative people can make quite a bit of sense out of announcing 1.0 prior to the conference. Open sourcing it may require efforts that simply didn't coincide with that announcement. I see this sort of pronouncement in the chat for the chess.com daily puzz…

"They will probably be releasing it coincident with their August 18 conference."

Edit to your edit: You asked a question, I answered it. Why be a rude about it, "genius"?

Re: Mojo 1.0

#160

Post by winding »

SJMG wrote: post #147
giancarlostoro wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Language-feature-wise it seems like Nim will be competitive. Ecosystem-wise… yeah it's kind of a nonstarter over in Nim land. There are not many go-to libraries and its culture is not very collaborative. People seem more enamored at what they can hack together than what they can contribute to.

Part of that is because there isn’t yet a package format and a central repository. I have a few libraries I would like to contribute or merge with similar projects.
Post reply on HN