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

31–40 of 181 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0

#31

Post by catoc »

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)

Re: Mojo 1.0

#32

Post by winding »

tfrancisl wrote: post #5
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.

this language predates the rise of "AI" (you probably mean harnessed LLMs, but I'll forgive you) by several years. This is the 1.0 release.

This is the team behind MLIR, they have been in this field for 10 years or so.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#33

Post by jibal »

oceansky wrote: post #20

AI generated first image does not give me much confidence. Lastest OpenCV 5 release notes also had a lot of LLMisms. I guess that's the new normal. Still, I am very hopeful for Mojo.

> I guess that's the new normal.

Yes, so basing confidence on it is totally bogus. Such comments are cheap and add nothing to the discussion of Mojo reaching 1.0 status.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#34

Post by FrustratedMonky »

oceansky wrote: post #20

AI generated first image does not give me much confidence. Lastest OpenCV 5 release notes also had a lot of LLMisms. I guess that's the new normal. Still, I am very hopeful for Mojo.

Isn't Mojo expressly for building AI frameworks? It isn't really needed or special as a language by-itself. It's main purpose is to make it easier to program these high end graphics cards for AI.

So maybe an AI image isn't the worst.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#35

Post by pjmlp »

redlewel wrote: post #22
pjmlp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C and C++ were closed source for quite some time, they still are in places like commercial embedded OSes and console dev kits, even when they happen to be GCC and clang forks nowadays. Clang actually has replaced most GCC forks exactly because vendors can keep the fork closed source.

Sure but at those times C and C++ had no immediate replacement, and if you were doing embedded C/C++ was your only option. The same cannot be said for Mojo.

In that regard yes, personally I think Mojo has lost its opportunity, but not due being commercial.

AMD/NVIDIA/Intel now having first class support for Python DSLs or GPU JITs for their APIs, and Julia as well.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#36

Post by nylonstrung »

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

Re: Mojo 1.0

#37

Post by nylonstrung »

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.

Do you know CUDA or Triton? The point of Mojo was to replace GPU kernel programming langs with a Pythonic one that was more familiar

Re: Mojo 1.0

#38

Post by nylonstrung »

redlewel wrote: post #6

Don't see the value of using a language with a closed source compiler... Much better options out there. Python already has libraries like Pydantic that offload performance to functions written in Rust under the hood.

The point is that Mojo compiles to MLIR for programming on heterogenous compute and GPU so something like Pydantic isn't really comparable here.

The alternatives would be stuff like CUDA

Re: Mojo 1.0

#39

Post by swiftcoder »

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

Re: Mojo 1.0

#40

Post by andy99 »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #34
oceansky wrote: post #20

AI generated first image does not give me much confidence. Lastest OpenCV 5 release notes also had a lot of LLMisms. I guess that's the new normal. Still, I am very hopeful for Mojo.

Isn't Mojo expressly for building AI frameworks? It isn't really needed or special as a language by-itself. It's main purpose is to make it easier to program these high end graphics cards for AI. So maybe an AI image isn't the worst.

People who work with AI all the time should be the most finely tuned in to how sloppy it looks and when to use it and when not.
Post reply on HN