3 ms·
I'm confused about the comparison here. I've never heard of Mojo before, but reading this and all the discussion of the main languages on Apple's platform, you'
by jb1991 3y ago
I'm confused about the comparison here. I've never heard of Mojo before, but reading this and all the discussion of the main languages on Apple's platform, you'd think that Mojo was somehow an alternative for development on iOS or macOS, replacing Objective-C and Swift, like the post is making a case that it is better than Objective-C. But it appears to have nothing to do with this, so the juxtaposition feels odd. There are a great many two-language-problem situations in the wild (Clojure/Java, Elm/JS, etc) and each features a solution that is somewhat tailored for the specific use-case or platform. Seems odd to compare one of these use-cases with another when the situations so widely vary.
- akkad33 3y agoI think it's because Mojo like Swift has Chris latter behind it and uses the same llvm backend?
- jb1991 3y agoAh, that could be it. I did not know the history, nothing in the article makes that point, not that it would need to I guess for people who already understand the history of the language.
- jmull 3y agoMaybe because of Chris Latner‘s involvement as a key person in both? I agree, though. I don’t see much basis for comparison.
- tipsytoad 3y agoI think largely because swift and mojo have the same creator, chris lattner. He was a guest on lex fridman last week https://youtu.be/pdJQ8iVTwj8 https://youtu.be/pdJQ8iVTwj8
- eddieh 3y agoYeah, I'm confused as well. Objective-C without C is Smalltalk. This looks like Python with types. Objective-C took a static language and made it dynamic with messages and objects. This takes a dynamic language and makes it more or less "static". So, if anything, it is exactly the opposite of Objective-C. To be clear, I didn't spend too much time examining this, so I might be way off. Grafting types onto a language doesn't interest me.