3 ms·

Mojo's developers claim that they intend for Mojo to be open source: https://www.modular.com/blog/the-next-big-step-in-mojo-open-source https://www.modular.com/

Mojo's developers claim that they intend for Mojo to be open source: https://www.modular.com/blog/the-next-big-step-in-mojo-open-source https://www.modular.com/blog/the-next-big-step-in-mojo-open-... This is encouraging, and it seems that at least the core of the language is now open: https://github.com/modularml/mojo https://github.com/modularml/mojo I haven't tried it and I don't have a sense of how open Mojo really is today, or what's left that isn't open. I tend to agree that we should take the open source claim with skepticism until we see it in action. The goals for the project are promising: something like the expressiveness of Python combined with the speed and safety of Rust. If they can pull it off, and it's open source, that will be very impressive.

archargelod 2y ago
> something like the expressiveness of Python combined with the speed and safety of Rust. Isn't that problem already solved? We already have Nim[0] that is memory-safe language with Python-esque syntax and performance of C. Yeah, it's not an extension of Python as Mojo claims to be; but I'd pick a mature language with proven design for my projects over something that's not even out yet. [0]- http://nim-lang.org http://nim-lang.org
- Maxatar 2y ago
  Nim is not memory safe and doesn't technically claim to be. What they claim is to provide memory safe features, but then so does C++ and a lot of other languages.
  - ivell 2y ago
    I didn't understand what you meant. Nim has GC by default. It does support pointers, but then Rust does too.