4 ms·
I was listening to the Chris Lattner interview by Lex Fridman the other day, very interesting stuff. I use Python for application programming, scripting and ba
by aerhardt 3y ago
I was listening to the Chris Lattner interview by Lex Fridman the other day, very interesting stuff.
I use Python for application programming, scripting and basic ML, so I think many of the Mojo features are not for me...
On the other hand, I love types and I think they're one of Python's weakest points. I use mypy and native typing but they feel like a weak scaffold compared to a strongly-typed language or even something like TypeScript.
Do you guys think there will be a case for Mojo as a general-purpose programming language "for the rest of us"?
- lysecret 3y agoStructs and strict type enforcement for a subset of the code, I really like. Also, a more seamless pipeline from "experimental python" to "reliable production ready python" makes a lot of sense to me. At the end of the day, mojo is very very early, not even open source yet. Furthermore, mojos success will be largely bound to modulars success, which is a VC backed company. A decent looking one but still that means it's more likely to fail fast than succeed slowly.
- modernerd 3y agoChris Lattner replied to a similar question about Mojo as a general purpose language here: > Mojo is a general purpose language and can be used to replace C use cases like Rust does etc, but that isn't where we're focusing initial development. That doesn't mean we're excluding it, just that the libraries etc aren't the focus for us to build. We hope the community will be interested in filling that in and building out the use cases in time though. https://github.com/modularml/mojo/discussions/302#discussioncomment-6065569 https://github.com/modularml/mojo/discussions/302#discussion...