Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

modular.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 121 posts

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#61

Post by verdagon »

melodyogonna wrote: post #51

If you like C++, you're going to like Mojo (if you're looking for alternatives). Some of the semantics and designs are inspired by C++, but wrapped in a Python-like skin. The way to think about Mojo, when compared to Rust, is that it was designed by expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like. When I see Rust, I see designers who loved the functional programming paradigm and wanted to make a…

This isn't quite accurate; Mojo uses the same memory safety approach as Rust. It has some mutable aliasing, but only intra-function, so in practice programs will be pretty much Rust-shaped.

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#62

Post by kibwen »

melodyogonna wrote: post #51

If you like C++, you're going to like Mojo (if you're looking for alternatives). Some of the semantics and designs are inspired by C++, but wrapped in a Python-like skin. The way to think about Mojo, when compared to Rust, is that it was designed by expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like. When I see Rust, I see designers who loved the functional programming paradigm and wanted to make a…

> it was designed by expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like

This also describes Rust. The mistake here is thinking that being an expert C++ programmer means that you can't also be an expert OCaml programmer.

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#63

Post by bwfan123 »

melodyogonna wrote: post #51

If you like C++, you're going to like Mojo (if you're looking for alternatives). Some of the semantics and designs are inspired by C++, but wrapped in a Python-like skin. The way to think about Mojo, when compared to Rust, is that it was designed by expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like. When I see Rust, I see designers who loved the functional programming paradigm and wanted to make a…

> expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like

Mojo looks nice but with coding agents the landscape has shifted at least in my view. There is no need for DSLs and abstractions that reduce human cognitive load. So, I still struggle with the usecase for Mojo. If you want close to metal performance, code in something that touches metal (c,c++), and doesnt abstract you away from it or require unsafe primitives. As a programmer who cares for performance, you want the least separation between your tools and the hw in the sense that you can visualize precisely what the hw is doing with no abstractions to hide it.

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#64

Post by ameliaquining »

vovavili wrote: post #58
cyansands wrote: post #44

Mojo (owned by Qualcomm ®) is now open source™ try it! Just remember we own it

I'd rather have an established company give broad autonomy to PL developers at a loss (Go at Google, Swift at Apple) than risk eventual squeeze when VCs ask for their money back.

Has that ever happened to a programming language?

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#65

Post by kibwen »

joshuakelleyds wrote: post #40

I would add quick note to this as title is misleading * It was partially open-sourced before this. There were a lot of cool things they open sourced before like MAX for large scale LLM serving which was outperforming VLLM, Dynamo, etc on a lot of models. (super valuable GPU kernels). This is why Qualcomm acquire them imo. * Chris (also created swift) talked in the past the reason for not fully open-sourcing was more…

> Chris (also created swift) talked in the past the reason for not fully open-sourcing was more because he wanted to get all the core design decisions right. He said this was a big thing Swift got wrong as it scaled too quickly being fully open source at the beginning.

Then he has learned the completely wrong lesson. Swift spent its first years floundering from breaking change to breaking change (from Swift 1.0 in 2014 to approximately Swift 5.0 in 2019) precisely because it wasn't open-sourced from the outset, instead being developed in the traditional airtight Apple fashion. In contrast, Rust was open-sourced from the outset, years before even its 0.1 release in 2012, which then allowed it to explore its design space in the hands of real users improving their own language without having to spend five years pushing embarrassing major releases to an allegedly-1.0 language to fix problems that any actual user could have identified.

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#66

Post by ameliaquining »

bwfan123 wrote: post #63
melodyogonna wrote: post #51

If you like C++, you're going to like Mojo (if you're looking for alternatives). Some of the semantics and designs are inspired by C++, but wrapped in a Python-like skin. The way to think about Mojo, when compared to Rust, is that it was designed by expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like. When I see Rust, I see designers who loved the functional programming paradigm and wanted to make a…

> expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like Mojo looks nice but with coding agents the landscape has shifted at least in my view. There is no need for DSLs and abstractions that reduce human cognitive load. So, I still struggle with the usecase for Mojo. If you want close to metal performance, code in something that touches metal (c,c++), and doesnt abstract you away from it or require uns…

I'm confused, C and C++ do require unsafe primitives? I think I must be misunderstanding your comment somehow.

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#67

Post by vovavili »

ameliaquining wrote: post #64
vovavili wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather have an established company give broad autonomy to PL developers at a loss (Go at Google, Swift at Apple) than risk eventual squeeze when VCs ask for their money back.

Has that ever happened to a programming language?

Darklang is probably the closest thing that comes to mind - https://blog.darklang.com/goodbye-dark-inc-welcome-darklang-...

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#69

Post by [deleted] »

ameliaquining wrote: post #66
bwfan123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like Mojo looks nice but with coding agents the landscape has shifted at least in my view. There is no need for DSLs and abstractions that reduce human cognitive load. So, I still struggle with the usecase for Mojo. If you want close to metal performance, code in something that touches metal (c,c++), and doesnt abstract you away from it or require uns…

I'm confused, C and C++ do require unsafe primitives? I think I must be misunderstanding your comment somehow.

[deleted]

Re: The Mojo language (by Modular, now Qualcomm) is now open-source

#70

Post by saghm »

mirekrusin wrote: post #53
ModernMech wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people talk about a language being open source they primarily mean the compiler. A closed compiler surrounded by a collection of open source things is an anti-pattern and trap to be avoided if you're interested in open tools, that's why open sourcing the Mojo compiler was so important to many people. > Chris (also created swift) talked in the past the reason for not fully open-sourcing was more because he wanted…

Chris literally was saying it from the very beginning (you can watch early interviews, obviously he was being asked about it), everything that happens with progressive opening is what he said he'll do and he gave rationale for it which is summarized by what parent comment says.

That doesn't seem to address what the parent comment says; they're arguing that the rationale for the progressive opening doesn't make sense, not that it didn't or wouldn't happen. If I say "I'm going to work on feature XYZ at work today because the sky is yellow and grass is purple", it would not make sense to defend my claim tomorrow by pointing out that I did work on feature XYZ.
Post reply on HN