5 ms·
Don't see the value of using a language with a closed source compiler... Much better options out there. Python already has libraries like Pydantic that offloa
by redlewel 2mo ago
Don't see the value of using a language with a closed source compiler...
Much better options out there. Python already has libraries like Pydantic that offload performance to functions written in Rust under the hood.
- my123 2mo ago> Finally, we will continue to progressively open-source more of the Mojo language, as well as components in MAX that we have built with it. Our commitment remains unchanged – we will open source the Mojo compiler and toolchain in 2026.
- mort96 2mo agoIt's categorically uninteresting until and unless that happens. Weird to release 1.0 without it. What are they waiting for?
- ktm5j 2mo agoA lot of people beg to differ. And it's their decision, not yours on when to open source. They have their reasons even if they aren't explaining them to you.
- fluidcruft 2mo agoPeople to tune in to the conference, probably.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> Weird to release 1.0 without it. What are they waiting for? Hmm, I've been under the impression that at one point they said it'd be 100% FOSS by the time 1.0 hits, but maybe I misunderstand/misremember the details. But I remember they'd said it'd be FOSS in connection with 1.0, seems weird to do it this way instead of waiting until it's all FOSS then cut 1.0.
- redlewel 2mo agoThis exactly. Doesn't scream confidence that its still closed upon release.
- bourbonproof 2mo agoI think they are waiting for a wild success in adoption, and if that doesn't happen they can use the IP to pivot to something else without giving the core away to anyone for free/as open-source.
- burntcaramel 2mo agoFrom listening to Chris Lattner in interviews my guess it’s learning from when Swift became open source. The beta versions of Swift had massive language changes in how value types worked like with Array. Mojo is trying to get this language design locked down first, which is easier to do behind closed doors. A compiler promising source stability is a different commitment than the compiler’s code being ready for outside contributors. Which is also different to having ABI stability, which took until 5.0 for Swift to achieve (I think Mojo does not have ABI stability as a goal as it doesn’t have to link to OS frameworks).
- jshier 2mo agoThat doesn't really make sense, as being open source really has nothing to do with whether the language has an open evolution process. And if they've already declared 1.0, then they've already decided they're stable, so the original point doesn't apply any more. I feel like they're going to remain closed until Qualcomm is convinced they can't make any money from it being so.
- mort96 2mo agoMassive language changes are easier to do without users. Whether the source code is visible to external people or not is completely irrelevant. I have a few programming language implementations on my GitHub and let me tell you, making manor breaking cha he's to those are easy as pie when I'm the only user. If Mojo's goal was to make evolution easier, they would have a limited closed beta like what Jai does. But they're not doing that; they make the toolchain available to everyone, they just did this marketing push around releasing version 1.0 of their language. They're making it harder to make breaking changes by seeking users among the general public. I have no idea why you started talking about outside contributors though, nobody's arguing that they should accept outside contributions. You do t have to do that. It's a completely orthogonal issue to what we're talking about, which is releasing the code under a FOSS license.
- ekianjo 2mo agoalso what license will they be going for?
- fluidcruft 2mo agoTheir website has a banner suggesting news about open sourcing of the compiler at some Aug 18 convention.
- pjmlp 2mo agoC and C++ were closed source for quite some time, they still are in places like commercial embedded OSes and console dev kits, even when they happen to be GCC and clang forks nowadays. Clang actually has replaced most GCC forks exactly because vendors can keep the fork closed source.
- redlewel 2mo agoSure but at those times C and C++ had no immediate replacement, and if you were doing embedded C/C++ was your only option. The same cannot be said for Mojo.
- mike_hearn 2mo agoThere were competitors. Pascal and assembly, most obviously. It was just a different culture. There was no expectation that everything should be free.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- pjmlp 2mo agoIn that regard yes, personally I think Mojo has lost its opportunity, but not due being commercial. AMD/NVIDIA/Intel now having first class support for Python DSLs or GPU JITs for their APIs, and Julia as well.
- jibal 2mo agoThe C compiler source came with the AT&T UNIX tape ... it wasn't open source because FOSS didn't exist at the time and it was under a proprietary license, but it was not "closed source". Parts of MOJO, OTOH, are closed source because the source has not been released (yet ... it apparently will be later this month).
- pjmlp 2mo agoThat one yes, the ones sold by all UNIX clone vendors definitely not. In fact, GCC was largely ignored until Sun decided to split SunOS into two SKUs.
- nylonstrung 2mo agoThe point is that Mojo compiles to MLIR for programming on heterogenous compute and GPU so something like Pydantic isn't really comparable here. The alternatives would be stuff like CUDA
- pjmlp 2mo agoWith cuTile Python, allowing to write Python today, without changing languages and first tier support from NVidia. https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cutile-python/index.html https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cutile-python/index.html
- woadwarrior01 2mo agoThe value has already been materialized. They were acquired by Qualcomm for $3.9 billion.
- sgt 2mo agoWow, so Lattner became a billionaire. Pays to be in compilers.
- woadwarrior01 2mo agoFor once. A former colleague once quipped: The only way to make decent money in the business of language runtimes is to get a job at a big company that depends on it.
- saghm 2mo agoYeah, feels kind of odd to phrase it like that when he's already created more than one world famous compiler before this one.
- woadwarrior01 2mo agoTBF, he has done more than his fair share of time working in BigTech.
- saghm 2mo agoSure, but that doesn't mean he made billions before!
- mohamedkoubaa 2mo agoThe value has been speculated on. It doesn't mean the value has materialized.
- pansa2 2mo agoThat’s insane, for a language that seems to be Temu-Python. OTOH Python itself is the world’s most popular programming language, yet has only recently had the money to support more than a single full-time developer.
- ashu1461 2mo agoPydantic is mainly about making Python strongly typed. Mojo addresses the actual need to write code in other languages, such as C++ or CUDA, for low level and hardware specific work. But I wonder if it has already missed the AI hype cycle, when a lot of low level code is being written. I'm not sure how the developer ecosystem will react now.
- zer0zzz 2mo agoThey are going to open source it eventually