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

41–50 of 201 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0

#41

Post by jibal »

pjmlp wrote: post #16
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.

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.

The C compiler source came with the AT&T UNIX tape ... it wasn't open source because FOSS didn't exist at the time and it was under a proprietary license, but it was not "closed source". Parts of MOJO, OTOH, are closed source because the source has not been released (yet ... it apparently will be later this month).

Re: Mojo 1.0

#43

Post by rirze »

minraws wrote: post #29

> 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. Why not now though? Why wait for 4 more months? What magic is there to hide in just making it source available at least.

It's probably very messy and not a great baseline for outside contributors to start create PRs.

That's the favorable interpretation, atleast.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#44

Post by e4m2 »

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48057901#48068126

Make of that what you will.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#45

Post by well_ackshually »

nylonstrung wrote: post #37
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

And Mojo will die because nvidia is not interested in maintaining any semblance of backwards compatibility when it comes to CUDA. It's going to be a perpetual race forwards, and whenever nvidia upgrades CUDA, you're going to be stuck there twiddling your thumbs and waiting for Mojo to become compatible.

Additionally, anyone who has seen how Swift evolved should be wary of Lattner saying "the language is mostly stable", or even "the language is released".

Re: Mojo 1.0

#46

Post by giancarlostoro »

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

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 do see this one overtaking Nim over time, which kind of saddens me, because I like Nim for what it is, but Mojo trying to be a superset of Python is a no-brainer for most Python developers. Reminds me of how a lot of Go devs were former Python devs not C++.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#47

Post by woadwarrior01 »

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 value has already been materialized. They were acquired by Qualcomm for $3.9 billion.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#48

Post by winding »

bourbonproof wrote: post #21
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 spotted the exact same thing with the AI image. makes the whole thing immediately feel cheap, it's wild

They’ve had this branding for some years, at least since 2023. I doubt at that time it was fully AI generated, although I have no proof of it. I always looked at it as being heavily AI inspired.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#49

Post by manojlds »

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

Python, but good.
Post reply on HN