Earlier quoted context omitted.
from what I understand the goal for now is not to get the people to use it, but for enthusiasts to try it
What enthusiast worth getting feedback from is going to tinker with a locked up language?
Mojo 1.0 Beta
51–60 of 252 posts
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#52When I first heard about Mojo I somehow got the impression that they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code. But it seems like they are very far away from that for the foreseeable future. I guess you can call back and forth between Python and Mojo but Mojo itself can't run existing Python code.
That was the original claim, but it was quietly removed from the website. (Did they fall for the common “Python is a simple language” misconception?).
Now they promise I can “write like Python”, but don’t even support fundamentals like classes (which are part of stage 3 of the roadmap, but they’re still working on stage 1).
Maybe Mojo will achieve all its goals, but so far has been over-promising and under-delivering - it’s starting to remind me of the V language.
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#53When I first heard about Mojo I somehow got the impression that they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code. But it seems like they are very far away from that for the foreseeable future. I guess you can call back and forth between Python and Mojo but Mojo itself can't run existing Python code.
Chris Lattner talked more about the relationship between MLIR and Mojo than Python and Mojo.
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#54Advertising prominently with "AI native" seems necessary today, at least for some folks. To me, that's kind of off-putting, since it doesn't really say anything. Can anyone of the AI enthusiasts here explain, why, or, what is meant by > As a compiled, statically-typed language, it's also ideal for agentic programming.
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#55Advertising prominently with "AI native" seems necessary today, at least for some folks. To me, that's kind of off-putting, since it doesn't really say anything. Can anyone of the AI enthusiasts here explain, why, or, what is meant by > As a compiled, statically-typed language, it's also ideal for agentic programming.
I don’t really consider myself an “AI enthusiasts”, but I do use it. So, agents tend to do better the more feedback they can get. Type checking is pretty good for catching a bunch of dumb mistakes automatically. The point is more hints for the agent is more better most of the time.
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#56I’m relatively new to programming but I wish they had used a functional language syntax rather than an object oriented one as the basis for mojo. From my experience, AI revolves a lot around building up function pipelines, computing their derivatives, and passing tons of data through them; which composability and higher order functions from functional programming make it a breeze to describe. I also feel that other f…
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#57As someone in ML who's interested in performance, I'm keen for Mojo to succeed - especially the prospect of mixing GPU and CPU code in the same language. But I do wonder if the changes they're making will dissuade Python devs. The last time I booted it up, I tried to do some basic string manipulation just to test stuff out, but spent an hour puzzling out why `var x = 'hello'; print(x[3])` didn't work, and neither did…
Unless it's open sourced, it's a moot point, as most Python devs wont come anyway.
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#58When I first heard about Mojo I somehow got the impression that they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code. But it seems like they are very far away from that for the foreseeable future. I guess you can call back and forth between Python and Mojo but Mojo itself can't run existing Python code.
Really the only thing good about Python is its ecosystem.
Might not have the niceties purists like, but perhaps that's exactly it's a great language for that.
It's like executable pseudocode, and unlike other languages, all the ceremony is optional.
People flocked to it way before it became a "must" for ML and CS thanks to that ecosystem becoming dominant.
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#59I am actually on a lookout for a low level language which compiles to web assembly to write a (relatively small) supervised learning model which I plan to be good enough for 5 year old phone CPUs. I have a working prototype in Julia and was planning on (eventually) rewrite it in Rust mostly for the web assembly target. I come from a high level language background so the thought of rewriting in rust is a little daunti…
Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta
#60As someone in ML who's interested in performance, I'm keen for Mojo to succeed - especially the prospect of mixing GPU and CPU code in the same language. But I do wonder if the changes they're making will dissuade Python devs. The last time I booted it up, I tried to do some basic string manipulation just to test stuff out, but spent an hour puzzling out why `var x = 'hello'; print(x[3])` didn't work, and neither did…
> As someone in ML who's interested in performance, I'm keen for Mojo to succeed - especially the prospect of mixing GPU and CPU code in the same language. But I do wonder if the changes they're making will dissuade Python devs. Unless it's open sourced, it's a moot point, as most Python devs wont come anyway.