5 ms·

It’s not just weird, it’s an intentionally dishonest evaluation to build hype around their language. If you ask your average Python programmer what “pure Pytho

by riscy 3y ago

It’s not just weird, it’s an intentionally dishonest evaluation to build hype around their language. If you ask your average Python programmer what “pure Python” means they’d think numpy is included. Their Mojo code just does the same optimizations numpy certainly has.

theldnsn 3y ago
[dead]
__mharrison__ 3y ago
My experience is that most Python programmers would consider "pure Python" to basically be using the standard library. There's also the issue of doing complicated work with NumPy and you start looping and revert back to slow (pure) Python because you are crossing the NumPy/ Python interface. Tools like Cython, Numba, and probably Mojo help to solve this.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  Pure Python means written wholly in Python to most Python programmers in my experience. For some Python programmers this excludes the 3rd party libraries they care about.
- gcr 3y ago
  For scientific users like they're targeting, `numpy` effectively _is_ part of the standard library.
- ska 3y ago
  The python/numpy boundary is a problem, which is sort of the value proposition of efforts like mojo or julia - no argument. But nobody doing any significant numeric work would ever consider a "pure" python matrix multiply meaningful. It's disingenuous to present that as your comparison, at least without also including the way it's actually done in practice. Honestly, it undermines their presentation with anyone involved in the area.
gcr 3y ago
AI developers expect these sorts of comparisons to be taken against accelerated code anyways. Modern Python NN frameworks don't spend significant time in the Python interpreter, so that's not where users would expect the bottleneck to be for their comparison. It's like claiming that your code is faster than MATLAB's for loops. Why write gemm yourself? Even if this language is a good idea, I worry that they don't seem to understand the audience.
mirekrusin 3y ago
The difference and the whole sales pitch is based on that detail - that you write everything in one language; there is no high level and low level language switch, everything is written in one langauge.
subharmonicon 3y ago
> It’s not just weird, it’s an intentionally dishonest evaluation to build hype around their language. Not too dissimilar to Swift, which was launched as being faster than C/C++.
silok 3y ago
But that is basically the core value proposition of mojo. You don’t need to drop down into another language to do low level, high performance kernels, you can do it all in mojo. Scalable in terms of target domains, (somewhat similar in that regard to swift).

by riscy 3y ago

theldnsn 3y ago

[dead]

__mharrison__ 3y ago

My experience is that most Python programmers would consider "pure Python" to basically be using the standard library. There's also the issue of doing complicated work with NumPy and you start looping and revert back to slow (pure) Python because you are crossing the NumPy/ Python interface. Tools like Cython, Numba, and probably Mojo help to solve this.

pseudalopex 3y ago
Pure Python means written wholly in Python to most Python programmers in my experience. For some Python programmers this excludes the 3rd party libraries they care about.
gcr 3y ago
For scientific users like they're targeting, `numpy` effectively _is_ part of the standard library.
ska 3y ago
The python/numpy boundary is a problem, which is sort of the value proposition of efforts like mojo or julia - no argument. But nobody doing any significant numeric work would ever consider a "pure" python matrix multiply meaningful. It's disingenuous to present that as your comparison, at least without also including the way it's actually done in practice. Honestly, it undermines their presentation with anyone involved in the area.

gcr 3y ago

AI developers expect these sorts of comparisons to be taken against accelerated code anyways. Modern Python NN frameworks don't spend significant time in the Python interpreter, so that's not where users would expect the bottleneck to be for their comparison. It's like claiming that your code is faster than MATLAB's for loops. Why write gemm yourself? Even if this language is a good idea, I worry that they don't seem to understand the audience.

mirekrusin 3y ago

The difference and the whole sales pitch is based on that detail - that you write everything in one language; there is no high level and low level language switch, everything is written in one langauge.

subharmonicon 3y ago

> It’s not just weird, it’s an intentionally dishonest evaluation to build hype around their language. Not too dissimilar to Swift, which was launched as being faster than C/C++.

silok 3y ago

But that is basically the core value proposition of mojo. You don’t need to drop down into another language to do low level, high performance kernels, you can do it all in mojo. Scalable in terms of target domains, (somewhat similar in that regard to swift).