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

81–90 of 233 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0

#81

Post by giancarlostoro »

afdbcreid wrote: post #68
totalperspectiv wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having written a lot of Mojo over the last two year, just for fun, it's a really cool language. Ownership model adjacent to Rust, comptime in the realm of Zig, rich type system, first class SIMD support, etc. Performance wise it's the first language in long time that isn't just an LLVM wrapper. LLVM is still involved, but they are using it differently than say, Rust or Zig. Very excited for Mojo once it's open source…

> Performance wise it's the first language in long time that isn't just an LLVM wrapper Why? Because it uses MLIR? Rust has its own MIR, it's even more not-LLVM-wrapper.

Probably because the creator created both LLVM and MLIR.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#82

Post by BeetleB »

tyre wrote: post #70
steve1977 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, without significant indentation?

Oh nooooo, they fucked it up too. Why would someone make a language that’s whitespace sensitive? It’s confounding.

To weed out programmers who don't indent.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#83

Post by raytopia »

charlieyu1 wrote: post #8

Interesting. Heard about Mojo a few years now, never really tried it. My Python brain cannot really write C++ or Rust but still need the performance.

Take a look into numba, you add a decorator to your function and it turns it into compiled code.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#84

Post by efficax »

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

i think the main idea is that by using MLIR[1] instead of the usual LLVM path it can target gpus directly

1. https://mlir.llvm.org/

Re: Mojo 1.0

#85

Post by flexagoon »

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.

> Lastest OpenCV 5 release notes also had a lot of LLMisms.

Yeah, that really made me triple-check if I visited a fake SEO spam website instead of the official OpenCV one. The fact that their blog looks exactly the same every single low-effort AI content farm doesn't help either.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#87

Post by BeetleB »

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

> makes the whole thing immediately feel cheap, it's wild

Hard to decide if the blog post is wild, or people's visceral reactions to it.

I've said it before: I believe the obsession in trying to figure out if something is AI generated will soon be classified as a mental disorder.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#89

Post by pjmlp »

jibal wrote: post #41
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.

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).

That one yes, the ones sold by all UNIX clone vendors definitely not.

In fact, GCC was largely ignored until Sun decided to split SunOS into two SKUs.

Re: Mojo 1.0

#90

Post by ioasuncvinvaer »

syrrim wrote: post #80
tyre wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh nooooo, they fucked it up too. Why would someone make a language that’s whitespace sensitive? It’s confounding.

Why would someone make a language where the programmer and the interpreter have two different ways of figuring out where blocks start and end?

at the closing curly?
Post reply on HN