Rendered at 19:37:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
swiftcoder 5 minutes ago [-]
I feel like this language would really benefit from some sort of 1-pager overview.
I just spent a fair bit of time on the official site, and I still don't think I have a very good grasp of what problem this language aims to solve, or why I would select it over other similar languages
oceansky 21 minutes ago [-]
AI generated first image does not give me much confidence.
Lastest OpenCV 5 release notes also had a lot of LLMisms.
I guess that's the new normal. Still, I am very hopeful for Mojo.
redlewel 19 minutes ago [-]
I know right? Would be better to have a banner with the language logo than some totally out of place aislop image, almost makes you think this is a random person's blog and not the official Mojo site
fwip 16 minutes ago [-]
I believe Mojo has been primarily using AI-generated imagery of its mascot for several years now, which politically aligns with its pivot to being a language for AI development.
bourbonproof 20 minutes ago [-]
I spotted the exact same thing with the AI image. makes the whole thing immediately feel cheap, it's wild
FrustratedMonky 12 minutes ago [-]
Isn't Mojo expressly for building AI frameworks? It isn't really needed or special as a language by-itself. It's main purpose is to make it easier to program these high end graphics cards for AI.
So maybe an AI image isn't the worst.
andy99 3 minutes ago [-]
People who work with AI all the time should be the most finely tuned in to how sloppy it looks and when to use it and when not.
jibal 12 minutes ago [-]
> I guess that's the new normal.
Yes, so basing confidence on it is totally bogus. Such comments are cheap and add nothing to the discussion of Mojo reaching 1.0 status.
galonk 19 minutes ago [-]
"Normal" keeps getting more and more depressing.
Did they think that image would make them look fun or interesting? Because it's exactly the opposite.
redlewel 49 minutes 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.
nylonstrung 6 minutes ago [-]
The 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
my123 48 minutes 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 43 minutes ago [-]
It's categorically uninteresting until and unless that happens. Weird to release 1.0 without it. What are they waiting for?
embedding-shape 23 minutes 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.
bourbonproof 18 minutes ago [-]
I 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.
redlewel 22 minutes ago [-]
This exactly. Doesn't scream confidence that its still closed upon release.
fluidcruft 34 minutes ago [-]
People to tune in to the conference, probably.
pjmlp 23 minutes ago [-]
C 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.
jibal 3 minutes ago [-]
The 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.
redlewel 20 minutes ago [-]
Sure 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.
pjmlp 12 minutes ago [-]
In 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.
18 minutes ago [-]
fluidcruft 47 minutes ago [-]
Their website has a banner suggesting news about open sourcing of the compiler at some Aug 18 convention.
minraws 18 minutes 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.
Why not now though? Why wait for 4 more months? What magic is there to hide in just making it source available at least.
rirze 49 seconds ago [-]
It's probably very messy and not a great baseline for outside contributors to start create PRs.
That's the favorable interpretation, atleast.
hnfwd5lqmp 2 minutes ago [-]
Clear, useful, done
alberth 2 hours ago [-]
So is the language itself proprietary licensed, with standard library Apache 2?
Am I understanding the current state of things correct?
xiphias2 39 minutes ago [-]
Mojo may be interesting to me, but they should really split it from Max, which is some closed stuff I'm not interested in.
They should show some performance comparisions between PyTorch and Mojo, PyTorch+kernel compilation + Triton vs Mojo, ThunderKittens vs Mojo.
embedding-shape 22 minutes ago [-]
> They should show some performance comparisions between PyTorch and Mojo, PyTorch+kernel compilation + Triton vs Mojo, ThunderKittens vs Mojo.
The fact that they release 1.0 without doing this, I think says a lot. I personally haven't even started looking into Mojo because of the closed source stuff, but usually you can tell what's going on by looking for what's obviously missing.
perarneng 45 minutes ago [-]
The main downside is that usually I only choose languages that the LLM is extremely good at. (however I avoid dynamically typed).
But I hope they succeed, it's a very interesting approach. Then I will jump on it later on. S
nylonstrung 11 minutes ago [-]
The premise of Mojo used to be that it was a superset of Python so in theory LLMs would benefit from that but I'm not sure how much divergence there's been
oceansky 20 minutes ago [-]
Are there any benchmarks on which languages models perform best?
charlieyu1 47 minutes ago [-]
Interesting. Heard about Mojo a few years now, never really tried it. My Python brain cannot really write C++ or Rust but still need the performance.
seanw444 35 minutes ago [-]
You may have heard of it already, but Nim has existed in this space for some time.
mathverse 20 minutes ago [-]
Nim could do better with more than just 1 or 2 brilliant developers
melodyogonna 2 hours ago [-]
Hurray!
beanjuiceII 47 minutes ago [-]
never has their been a language release so uninspiring
mono442 2 hours ago [-]
Creating a new language in the age of AI seems kind of pointless. I don't write code by hand anymore, I only review it and I prefer it to be in a language which I already know since investing time in learning another language doesn't make sense at this point.
nylonstrung 8 minutes ago [-]
Do you know CUDA or Triton? The point of Mojo was to replace GPU kernel programming langs with a Pythonic one that was more familiar
catoc 16 minutes ago [-]
Pointless? If compiled mojo is faster, more memory-safe, and more hardware independent, that doesn’t seem pointless at all to me.
(And now in the age of LLMs, the barriers to get started with a new programming language are lower than ever)
tfrancisl 1 hours ago [-]
this language predates the rise of "AI" (you probably mean harnessed LLMs, but I'll forgive you) by several years. This is the 1.0 release.
winding 15 minutes ago [-]
This is the team behind MLIR, they have been in this field for 10 years or so.
I just spent a fair bit of time on the official site, and I still don't think I have a very good grasp of what problem this language aims to solve, or why I would select it over other similar languages
Lastest OpenCV 5 release notes also had a lot of LLMisms.
I guess that's the new normal. Still, I am very hopeful for Mojo.
So maybe an AI image isn't the worst.
Yes, so basing confidence on it is totally bogus. Such comments are cheap and add nothing to the discussion of Mojo reaching 1.0 status.
Did they think that image would make them look fun or interesting? Because it's exactly the opposite.
Much better options out there. Python already has libraries like Pydantic that offload performance to functions written in Rust under the hood.
The alternatives would be stuff like CUDA
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.
Clang actually has replaced most GCC forks exactly because vendors can keep the fork closed source.
AMD/NVIDIA/Intel now having first class support for Python DSLs or GPU JITs for their APIs, and Julia as well.
Why not now though? Why wait for 4 more months? What magic is there to hide in just making it source available at least.
That's the favorable interpretation, atleast.
Am I understanding the current state of things correct?
They should show some performance comparisions between PyTorch and Mojo, PyTorch+kernel compilation + Triton vs Mojo, ThunderKittens vs Mojo.
The fact that they release 1.0 without doing this, I think says a lot. I personally haven't even started looking into Mojo because of the closed source stuff, but usually you can tell what's going on by looking for what's obviously missing.
But I hope they succeed, it's a very interesting approach. Then I will jump on it later on. S
(And now in the age of LLMs, the barriers to get started with a new programming language are lower than ever)