3 ms·
>As someone in ML who's interested in performance, I'm keen for Mojo to succeed - especially the prospect of mixing GPU and CPU code in the same language. But I
by coldtea 6mo ago
>As someone in ML who's interested in performance, I'm keen for Mojo to succeed - especially the prospect of mixing GPU and CPU code in the same language. But I do wonder if the changes they're making will dissuade Python devs.
Unless it's open sourced, it's a moot point, as most Python devs wont come anyway.
- Certhas 6mo agoThis is a bit ironic, given that people seem to have no problem using CUDA all over the place... Plus they promise to open source with the 1.0 release. We'll see...
- _aavaa_ 6mo agoI don’t see irony there. We’re locked into CUDA due to past decisions. And in new decisions we don’t want to repeat that mistake.
- pjmlp 6mo agoCUDA won because AMD and Intel made a mess out of OpenCL, and Khronos had no vision to support anything beyond C99 dialect until it was too late. Doesn't matter if it was closed, when the alternatives were much worse.
- zozbot234 6mo agoSYCL is the de facto successor to OpenCL that supports higher level languages. So the vision was and is there.
- pjmlp 6mo agoAs mentioned, Khronos only changed their mind when it was too late. I can also recite the whole story, the missteps in OpenCL 2. , OpenCL C++, the OpenCL 3.0 reboot, how SYCL came to, CodePlay only proper available implementation, Intel acquisition of CodePlay and everything else.
- physicsguy 6mo agoPlus NVIDIA clocked that it was also the developer library ecosystem and even now there just aren’t equivalents. The AMD rocFFT library wasn’t even complete compared to FFTW until very recently and cuFFT did that more than a decade ago
- MohamedMabrouk 6mo agoI think that plan is to open source the compiler with 1.0 which is expected to be this summer. so in ~3-4 months time.
- ktm5j 6mo agoI'm really not sure that's true.. I can't think of a single Python dev I've worked with who cared about opensource. All they cared about is the language being easy and free to use.
- physicsguy 6mo agoThe people that write the libraries care, why do you think Python is where we’re writing ML code and not MATLAB?
- zbentley 6mo agoMojo is free, though. MATLAB costing money is a bigger issue than it being closed source. R was too late to the game and catered too much to professional math/stats/datascience people rather than programming generalists. Python (with native code interop) hit the sweet spot for breadth/accessibility to the market and capability.
- IshKebab 6mo agoBecause MATLAB isn't free to use... (Among other reasons, but that's easily the main one.)
- physicsguy 6mo agoMost of the scientific libraries of note originate in academia where MATLAB is effectively free to users. The cross over to Python was well under way by ~2014
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- flakiness 6mo agohttps://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/#contributing-to-mojo https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/#contributing-to-mojo > We're committed to open-sourcing all of Mojo, but the language is still very young and we believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision moves faster than a community-driven effort. So we will continue to plan and prioritize the Mojo roadmap within Modular until more of its internal architecture is fleshed out. I hope they stick to their original promise. And the 1.0 release would be a great time to deliver this.
- adamnemecek 6mo agoThis is exactly how the open sourcing of Swift went so I imagine it will be the same.
- otabdeveloper4 6mo ago> We're committed to open-sourcing all of Mojo Translated from corporatese it means "it will never happen".
- jlundberg 6mo agoWith Chris Lattners track record, there is little reason to doubt they actually will open source this.
- ModernMech 6mo agoIt’s not Chris Lattner who gets to make the call though. He has investors to the tune of $300 million, and making them happy is the reason it hasn’t been done yet. A lot of people, very reasonably, relieve it’s not possible to satisfy them and also the development community, and when when push comes to shove it’ll be the investors who win because they have the money. So it’s not Chris Lattner’s track record that makes people worried — it’s the track record of investors choosing control over openness, which is a pretty solid record.
- MohamedMabrouk 6mo ago