Mojo 1.0 Beta

Post by boxed » Mon, May 11, 2026, 6:26 AM UTC

msaelices wrote: post #161

boxed wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've recently used Claude to write quite a bit of mojo ( https://github.com/boxed/TurboKod ) and I can quite confidently say that Claude will write deprecated mojo syntax a lot , but the compiler tells it and it fixes it pretty fast too. The only reason I notice is that I look at Claude while it's working and I see the compilation warnings (and sometimes Claude is lazy and doesn't compile so I have to see it). But ye…

Have you used the Mojo syntax skill with modern LLMs? It is updated to latest Mojo and I can say nearly 100% of my code is written by AI, with good quality, and the compiler helping it too.

Post by melodyogonna » Mon, May 11, 2026, 10:41 AM UTC

tapirl wrote: post #239

melodyogonna wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but see the entire section on metaprogramming: https://mojolang.org/nightly/docs/manual/metaprogramming/ . Mojo's compile-time programming is influenced by Zig, but has features that are not in Zig e.g traits, generics (real generics), and constraints, that work together.

It might be feature richer, but it is hard to say it is more powerful. Sometimes, features (especially constraints) will reduce powerlessness.

Post by melodyogonna » Mon, May 11, 2026, 3:07 PM UTC

sidkshatriya wrote: post #208

flakiness wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/#contributing-to-mojo > We're committed to open-sourcing all of Mojo, but the language is still very young and we believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision moves faster than a community-driven effort. So we will continue to plan and prioritize the Mojo roadmap within Modular until more of its internal architecture is fleshed out. I hope they stick to their original…

> but the language is still very young and we believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision moves faster than a community-driven effort. This is a false dichotomy. For years Golang was developed in the open but strictly moved on the vision of its creators rather than being "community-driven". Many other venerable open source projects don't involve the community in serious strategy discussions. The comm…

Post by dtj1123 » Tue, May 12, 2026, 5:47 AM UTC

boxed wrote: post #244

dtj1123 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, an electromagnetic pulse travelling through a copper wire will propagate at at something like 85% of the speed of light. Leaving aside that this is still distinct from the speed of light, can you tell me how this would have in any way influenced the design of mojo?

I re-read that passage where he mentions the speed of light. Clearly he's trying to explain that if you start from the bottom of what the hardware can do and try to get that all to the programmers hands then you have something that is close to the theoretical speed. This is different from trying to go down the stack from python down and seeing where you can optimize. I think you're a bit too angry already to interpre…

Post by vovavili » Thu, May 14, 2026, 10:47 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #105

adev_ wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love when dialects for C and C++ count as being proper C and C++, are even argued as being more relevant than ISO standards by themselves I did not argue about CUDA being proper C++ :) I honestly believe that the best days of C++ as an accelerator language are behind. That is the main problem currently: We do miss a modern language for system programming that play well with accelerators. C++ is not (really) one o…

I would argue Chapel or Futhark could be such languages, but they aren't cool.