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

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0

#161

Post by winding »

pansa2 wrote: post #114
grim_io wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this. What kind of special whitespace requirements do people have?

I like significant invitation, but I still wouldn’t choose it if I was designing a language today. 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.

As I understand it, Mojo’s goal is to be able to match state of the art performance for parallel algorithms and be able to use the exotic GPU hardware. A functional style is not necessarily productive in that context.

One interesting PL concept they implement are linear types https://mojolang.org/docs/std/traits/anytype/AnyType/

Re: Mojo 1.0

#162

Post by ModernMech »

gabrielsroka wrote: post #159
whimsicalism wrote: post #106

Sorry Chris, love you but will not use a closed language.

They're open sourcing it next week. It's in TFA

TFA says "we will open source the Mojo compiler and toolchain in 2026" and "we’ll share more on our plans for Mojo, MAX, and open source at ModCon on August 18th" which makes it seem they're not open sourcing it next week, but some time between next week and 1/1/27.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#163

Post by adsharma »

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

https://github.com/py2many/static-python-skill

You can stick to python and generate mojo or rust or lean.

There is more than one solution to the two language problem.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#164

Post by adsharma »

Given the shared heritage with MLIR, one way to think about mojo: higher level IR, but still an IR. Rpython for GPUs.

But mojo is a superset, not a subset. So why not use a subset, infer what you need and generate mojo?

I've never seen this question actually presented to the company and discussed in more detail.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#167

Post by ekianjo »

BeetleB wrote: post #82
tyre wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh nooooo, they fucked it up too. Why would someone make a language that’s whitespace sensitive? It’s confounding.

To weed out programmers who don't indent.

identation should be something the compiler does not care about

Re: Mojo 1.0

#168

Post by ekianjo »

mort96 wrote: post #12
my123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Finally, we will continue to progressively open-source more of the Mojo language, as well as components in MAX that we have built with it. Our commitment remains unchanged – we will open source the Mojo compiler and toolchain in 2026.

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

also what license will they be going for?

Re: Mojo 1.0

#169

Post by jillesvangurp »

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

Their communication definitely needs work. I listened to the interview with Chris on the Lex Friedman podcast a few years ago. Back when the pitch still was "minimal python superset that allows us to make it go voom". It wasn't a bad pitch. But it's gotten a lot murkier since then apparently. And obviously pitching a new language just before world plus dog was about to switch to delegating programming work to AI agents wasn't great timing.

> "Qualcomm to Acquire Modular"

That's linked from their news section. If I read between the lines here what happened is the VC money ran out and they arranged some kind of acquihire. That obviously raises a lot of questions about what will happen to Mojo and the intentions around it. The merger was completed a few weeks ago so apparently this is a done deal. Them wrapping a ribbon around the 1.0 a few weeks later is a bit suggestive.

The modular front page reads like it was trying to pitch the whole thing as a competitor to other inference platforms like open router, replicate, bedrock, etc.

I'm sure there's more to it and that the tech was amazing. But the acquisition raises a lot of questions about the future of the whole thing. An OSS move at least would allow people to continue working on Mojo independently from Qualcomm. I assume some people in the team might be moving on post acquisition.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#170

Post by SP3269 »

From Mojo Wikipedia article: ``` The intention behind Mojo is to bridge the gap between Python’s ease of use and the fast performance required for cutting-edge AI applications. ```

Basically, same raison d'etre as that of Julia.

Post reply on HN