3 ms·
The thing about Mojo is that the part they spend most of their time promoting in their online material (Python but faster and good for AI) doesn't seem to requi
by BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
The thing about Mojo is that the part they spend most of their time promoting in their online material (Python but faster and good for AI) doesn't seem to require a new language at all, but rather a new hardware-aware Python compiler and some extra library modules.
It sure looks like they only turned it into a new language because they wanted to add static typing and immutable references, which maybe you care about and maybe you don't.
In that light it's hard for me to appreciate the development direction they've gone in.
- rbanffy 3y agoIndeed. It feels like it’s a nice language and, building on LLVM makes it stand on a solid foundation, but, still, it feels like a series of PEPs, some of which I can easily get behind. If they make mojo modules callable from Python code, it all becomes a whole lot more palatable.
- hashtag-til 3y agoYes. It seems everybody is just creating this tiny small secret sauce and giving it a different name to lure venture capital. I love the LLVM ecosystem, will touch Mojo only when they evolve it and build more bridges with the regular Python ecosystem.
- rbanffy 3y agoThis seems like a huge effort and a pretty well rounded language. Could even succeed Python in some spaces. I like the syntax being unobtrusive as well. I’d love to see it being used to write modules usable from Python code. This could provide a smooth migration path to apps that benefit less from Python’s dynamic nature and more from C-like speeds.
- falkaer 3y agoThose new language constructs are exactly what's enabling the performance gains, by giving reliable information to the compiler. Projects like numba have clearly demonstrated the limitations of trying to compile pure Python.
- atorodius 3y agoYeah I was thinking the same. Jax does this, but I did not see a comparison.