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

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0

#191

Post by pjmlp »

usef- wrote: post #121
dgellow wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an issue when generating python, I can tell you from experience. It’s also a pain to not be able to safely rely on an auto formatter

Every python developer I know uses an auto formatter today, and never needs to think about it (ruff, black). It's not ambiguous and is immediately visible if something has the wrong indent. (On other projects, I often wish other languages had formatters as good and standard as the Python ecosystem. I have many complaints about Python but whitespace is just not a problem I've seen)

Today and forever, I was using ActiveState IDEs back in the day, I started using Python in version 1.6.

Also it isn't the only one, many ML derived languages also use indentation, including the famous F#, Standard ML, OCaml, Haskell,....

Re: Mojo 1.0

#192

Post by pjmlp »

tyre wrote: post #70
steve1977 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, without significant indentation?

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

Like with array base indexes, there are plenty of languages that start with something other than zero, and many that use indentation, including a few well known in hacker circles, Python isn't alone.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#193

Post by pjmlp »

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.

True anonymous functions has nothing to do with indentation, ML derived languages are also indentation based.

Guido doesn't want them in the language, as simple as that.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#194

Post by pjmlp »

jmalicki wrote: post #123
pansa2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s insane, for a language that seems to be Temu-Python. 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.

What else are you going to write CUDA kernels in that will be better than Mojo? This doesn't compete with Python. Like if someone wrote a competitor to VHDL that looked like TEMU Python... Python would not be its competitor, VHDL would.

Python tooling from NVidia itself, which generate the same PTX as CUDA C++.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#196

Post by pjmlp »

catoc wrote: post #31
mono442 wrote: post #4

Creating a new language in the age of AI seems kind of pointless. I don't write code by hand anymore, I only review it and I prefer it to be in a language which I already know since investing time in learning another language doesn't make sense at this point.

Pointless? If compiled mojo is faster, more memory-safe, and more hardware independent, that doesn’t seem pointless at all to me. (And now in the age of LLMs, the barriers to get started with a new programming language are lower than ever)

Eventually we will all be writing COBOL and how English turns into machine code is irrelevant.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#197

Post by samuell »

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

For me as a follower, my interest is all about a compiled and fast language with little complexity (vs Rust), and a highly readable and fluent syntax (vs Go).

Re: Mojo 1.0

#198

Post by boxed »

embedding-shape wrote: post #17
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?

> Weird to release 1.0 without it. What are they waiting for? Hmm, I've been under the impression that at one point they said it'd be 100% FOSS by the time 1.0 hits, but maybe I misunderstand/misremember the details. But I remember they'd said it'd be FOSS in connection with 1.0, seems weird to do it this way instead of waiting until it's all FOSS then cut 1.0.

They have some event scheduled for next week too.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#199

Post by melodyogonna »

pjmlp wrote: post #188
MohamedMabrouk wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they had a good dive here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEwTjZvy8vw The gist is that MLIR (unlike LLVM) was designed to be multithreaded so the whole stack above LLVM IR is parallel, and then LLVM is used as a per-function codegen tool in parallel, so although LLVM itself is single threaded there are multiple seperate contexts of it. also I think they wrote their own linker.

That is hardly novel, here is the thesis for the Oberon multithreaded compiler from 2003. https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/entities/publication... C# compiler is also fully multithreaded since the Roslyn rewrite in 2016.

The novelty is in parrelizing LLVM, which is traditionally a single-thread code generator.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#200

Post by woadwarrior01 »

saghm wrote: post #137
woadwarrior01 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For once. A former colleague once quipped: The only way to make decent money in the business of language runtimes is to get a job at a big company that depends on it.

Yeah, feels kind of odd to phrase it like that when he's already created more than one world famous compiler before this one.

TBF, he has done more than his fair share of time working in BigTech.
Post reply on HN