5 ms·

Both C and Python are open source. I can't take Mojo seriously until it does the same.

anakaine 3y ago
They've also claimed both on the page and in the podcast that certain testing reveals a 68,000x speed up vs Python. That's probably true in a select case, but this is why you use libraries in Python - to make use of all the hard work that already exists in C/C++ in those libraries, with Python serving as a high level and far easier to write functional wrapper. Ie anyone serious about performance isn't going to be looking at that metric seriously, rather they're going to be asking what the real performance gains are vs standard practice. In that case the answer seems to be rather roughly a 1.5x speed up based on what's on the performance page of their site when comparing to PyTorch and CUDA, which is a more realistic scenario. I am curious about how much work the compiler does to automatically identify available hardware and distribute the load on its own vs how much you need to specify as a developer.
- nottorp 3y ago
  All I know from the news is they have a marketing team that decided to jump on the AI hype bandwagon. Plus the aforementioned outlandish performance claims. Unfortunately marketing like this tends to trigger an equal and opposite reaction in me. Anyone with AI programming experience can comment on whether they have made any specific believable claims about performance?
  - singularity2001 3y ago
    If it wasn't for Chris Lattner I'd put Mojo in the same bucket as V thanks to said dissociated marketing team
    - nottorp 3y ago
      Hey, V and R are nice language names. How do you search for them with the current engines? And that company… whatsitsname… X?
      - Hikikomori 3y ago
        How do you search for C?
        nottorp 3y ago
        You type Rust and someone has rewritten the C application in it already. In C’s defense it was made before search engines.
      - goku12 3y ago
        It's quite easy for languages. You just append 'lang' or language to the name. Works even for single letter languages like C, D, R and V.
  - hashtag-til 3y ago
    Still early days to see whether this is niche or mainstream. As of today, I’d bet it is niche like Julia, R, etc.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >That's probably true in a select case, but this is why you use libraries in Python - to make use of all the hard work that already exists in C/C++ in those libraries, with Python serving as a high level and far easier to write functional wrapper. Yes, but that's also the issue they address. That you cant just write plain Python for something not covered by libraries and have it be fast. You need to then mess with extending with C, Cython, and so on.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kbrkbr 3y ago
    Or you use numba [1]. Then you can use a subset of plain Python. [1] https://numba.pydata.org/ https://numba.pydata.org/
  - taway1237 3y ago
    Why is cython (python-like fast language) worse than mojo (python-like fast language)?
    - CoreyFieldens 3y ago
      There's not a strong reason to use Mojo over cython right now, but if Mojo can deliver on their claims, I think there will be. A borrow checker, better IDE support, function overloading support, and better SIMD support are things that stick out to me in Mojos favor.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Aside from the rest of stuff they offer (and higher speed, if they're telling the truth) Mojo is also a standalone language you can use, whereas Cython is meant for dual-mode use alongside Python.
pjmlp 3y ago
C isn't open source. To make a conforming C compiler, someone has to buy the ISO C standard (208 CHF), which other folks will then spend development resources in creating C compilers that obey said standard. The biggest open source compilers, clang and GCC, only keep being up to date with ISO C, because of the money from IBM, Red-Hat, Apple, ARM, Intel, Green-Hills,... place in assigning company resources to work on them.
- gnomewascool 3y ago
  What the OP meant is that there are (multiple!) open source C compilers, which you agree is the case. Questions about the standard/specification are a different matter: 1. Whether the language has one? (Many languages, both open source and proprietary don't! I believe mojo doesn't have one?) 2. Whether it's available for free (gratis)? 3. Whether it's under a free (libre) license that allows redistribution with modifications?
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  What development resources is green hills contributing to GCC or clang? As far as I know, they don't actively develop either, aside from selling a completely unrelated compiler that used to be called "gcc" long before the Gnu compiler ever used that name. They also haven't meaningfully participated in the mailing lists under their company name. In any case, it's my understanding that the C standards have largely been community driven efforts that formalized things already being done by major compilers like Gnu rather than driven by the technical needs of industry the way C++ has.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Their new compiler is a clang fork, they contribute at least to LLVM.
    - AlotOfReading 3y ago
      Interesting, how did you find that out and which product was it for (if you can say)? They recently (as in this year) assured me that the safety certified compiler was home-grown. I'm inclined to believe them given how broken the parser is and how many features it lacks.
aeurielesn 3y ago
I was taken aback by the sign up to try it out.

They've also claimed both on the page and in the podcast that certain testing reveals a 68,000x speed up vs Python. That's probably true in a select case, but this is why you use libraries in Python - to make use of all the hard work that already exists in C/C++ in those libraries, with Python serving as a high level and far easier to write functional wrapper. Ie anyone serious about performance isn't going to be looking at that metric seriously, rather they're going to be asking what the real performance gains are vs standard practice. In that case the answer seems to be rather roughly a 1.5x speed up based on what's on the performance page of their site when comparing to PyTorch and CUDA, which is a more realistic scenario. I am curious about how much work the compiler does to automatically identify available hardware and distribute the load on its own vs how much you need to specify as a developer.

nottorp 3y ago
All I know from the news is they have a marketing team that decided to jump on the AI hype bandwagon. Plus the aforementioned outlandish performance claims. Unfortunately marketing like this tends to trigger an equal and opposite reaction in me. Anyone with AI programming experience can comment on whether they have made any specific believable claims about performance?
- singularity2001 3y ago
  If it wasn't for Chris Lattner I'd put Mojo in the same bucket as V thanks to said dissociated marketing team
  - nottorp 3y ago
    Hey, V and R are nice language names. How do you search for them with the current engines? And that company… whatsitsname… X?
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      How do you search for C?
      - nottorp 3y ago
        You type Rust and someone has rewritten the C application in it already. In C’s defense it was made before search engines.
    - goku12 3y ago
      It's quite easy for languages. You just append 'lang' or language to the name. Works even for single letter languages like C, D, R and V.
- hashtag-til 3y ago
  Still early days to see whether this is niche or mainstream. As of today, I’d bet it is niche like Julia, R, etc.
coldtea 3y ago
>That's probably true in a select case, but this is why you use libraries in Python - to make use of all the hard work that already exists in C/C++ in those libraries, with Python serving as a high level and far easier to write functional wrapper. Yes, but that's also the issue they address. That you cant just write plain Python for something not covered by libraries and have it be fast. You need to then mess with extending with C, Cython, and so on.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kbrkbr 3y ago
  Or you use numba [1]. Then you can use a subset of plain Python. [1] https://numba.pydata.org/ https://numba.pydata.org/
- taway1237 3y ago
  Why is cython (python-like fast language) worse than mojo (python-like fast language)?
  - CoreyFieldens 3y ago
    There's not a strong reason to use Mojo over cython right now, but if Mojo can deliver on their claims, I think there will be. A borrow checker, better IDE support, function overloading support, and better SIMD support are things that stick out to me in Mojos favor.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Aside from the rest of stuff they offer (and higher speed, if they're telling the truth) Mojo is also a standalone language you can use, whereas Cython is meant for dual-mode use alongside Python.

pjmlp 3y ago

C isn't open source. To make a conforming C compiler, someone has to buy the ISO C standard (208 CHF), which other folks will then spend development resources in creating C compilers that obey said standard. The biggest open source compilers, clang and GCC, only keep being up to date with ISO C, because of the money from IBM, Red-Hat, Apple, ARM, Intel, Green-Hills,... place in assigning company resources to work on them.

gnomewascool 3y ago
What the OP meant is that there are (multiple!) open source C compilers, which you agree is the case. Questions about the standard/specification are a different matter: 1. Whether the language has one? (Many languages, both open source and proprietary don't! I believe mojo doesn't have one?) 2. Whether it's available for free (gratis)? 3. Whether it's under a free (libre) license that allows redistribution with modifications?
AlotOfReading 3y ago
What development resources is green hills contributing to GCC or clang? As far as I know, they don't actively develop either, aside from selling a completely unrelated compiler that used to be called "gcc" long before the Gnu compiler ever used that name. They also haven't meaningfully participated in the mailing lists under their company name. In any case, it's my understanding that the C standards have largely been community driven efforts that formalized things already being done by major compilers like Gnu rather than driven by the technical needs of industry the way C++ has.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Their new compiler is a clang fork, they contribute at least to LLVM.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    Interesting, how did you find that out and which product was it for (if you can say)? They recently (as in this year) assured me that the safety certified compiler was home-grown. I'm inclined to believe them given how broken the parser is and how many features it lacks.

aeurielesn 3y ago

I was taken aback by the sign up to try it out.