Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- 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.
by xiphias2 - Aren’t they already separated? Max is an inference runtime, written in Mojolang, which uses the MLIR compiler chain to target diverse accelerator hardware.by pbronez
- They kind of did. It has a separate website now [1] . All the docs, announcements, roadmap, some comparisons as you asked are there. So they do seem to be working towards separation.by geodel
- > 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.
- See their in-depth vision doc here:by jdnier
- What in the world would posses the modular team to attach those horrendous AI generated thumbnails to each blog post? It makes it feel cheap, even though I know the project has some really serious technical expertise behind it.by tomburgs
- They're an AI companyby melodyogonna
- Ssssh, don't tell them.
"AI slop image below the headline" is an unmistakable mark of low-quality content written by a sophomoric AI evangelist. Let them keep watermarking their own content.
by ryukoposting - So is the language itself proprietary licensed, with standard library Apache 2?
Am I understanding the current state of things correct?
by alberth - Apparently they'll be open sourcing it on August 18th, one week from now.
- Nothing but respect for Chris, and I understand why founders take these deals. But an acquihire usually means the product is the part that gets left behind, and that's the part I cared about.by twsted
- Well, there was $300M+ in VC money and after burning through some percentage of it those investors wanted an exit. I don’t think this is so much about founders taking a deal as it is investors demanding that exit.by blltprfmnk
- $3.9 billion is not an acquihire!by willseth
- From Mojo Wikipedia article: ``` The intention behind Mojo is to bridge the gap between Python’s ease of use and the fast performance required for cutting-edge AI applications. ```
Basically, same raison d'etre as that of Julia.
by SP3269 - The design and intellectual heritage of Julia and Mojo couldn't be more different though. Mojo is a Swift/Rust style language from industry veterans, Julia is a Lisp built to make academics write faster code.by Certhas
- Mojo and Julia have some very fundamental differences though...
Mojo is a fully ahead-of-time (AOT) compiled systems language. Julia is much more dynamic, and its AOT compilation story is still quite weak. Mojo also has explicit memory management, unlike Julia and its real time unfriendly garbage collector.
Mojo also has the concept of ownership, similar to Rust, while Julia does not.
Mojo is being pitched as an efficient, general purpose, Pythonic systems language which can target a variety of hardware types. That seems like a good target to me, I hope it's successful!
One thing to keep an eye on is whether or not a Windows port emerges after it's open sourced...
- Completely true, but Mojo approaches the problem from a different angle. Where Julia aims to blend fast and slow code seamlessly, Mojo's solution is to have a set of opt-in semantics that ensure fast code.by jakobnissen
- > 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.
by minraws - Who said anything about 4 months? Your "logic" seems to be that they are releasing it in 2026 and there are 4 more months in 2026 so they will be releasing it in 4 months. That's obviously flawed thinking. They will probably be releasing it coincident with their August 18 conference.by jibal
- My guess is that the compiler will be opened next week at Modcon. Honestly? I'm surprised Mojo 1.0 is being released now; I had thought it would be released at Modcon along with the compiler source code, but oh well, 18th August isn't far now.by melodyogonna
- It's probably very messy and not a great baseline for outside contributors to start create PRs.
That's the favorable interpretation, atleast.
by rirze - Is Mojo being a superset of Python still part of its projected feature set?
I tried Mojo a bit early on and decided to come back to it when it was more complete, and in the interim I read some comments somewhere that the superset-of-Python part was being walked back from.
On https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/ it's stated (Phase 3) that "Mojo may or may not evolve into a full superset of Python, and it's okay if it doesn't."
I feel like that "full superset of Python" part was part of the appeal of Mojo.
Personally I'm kind of tired of 97% python-compatible this-and-that. Python itself has enough of a history of incompatibility and the cognitive overhead in switching might be easier with just moving to a totally different language. But maybe not — it depends on the details I guess.
Honestly reading through the documentation more and more I'm more and more confused about what the 1.0 release actually means.
by derbOac - They moved the goalposts. I think the landscape has changed since their initial Python superset pitch.
It seems like a deliberate pivot towards creating an AI-era language which make GPU programming as easy as writing Python.
by spprashant - > I feel like that "full superset of Python" part was part of the appeal of Mojo.
It absolutely was, but IMO was never going to happen. Python has a reputation as a simple language, but it really isn’t. It’s a very complex language hiding behind friendly syntax.
I think once the Mojo team realised that, they had to adjust their expectations.
by pansa2 - 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.
by oceansky - > 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.
by jibal - > Lastest OpenCV 5 release notes also had a lot of LLMisms.
Yeah, that really made me triple-check if I visited a fake SEO spam website instead of the official OpenCV one. The fact that their blog looks exactly the same every single low-effort AI content farm doesn't help either.
by flexagoon - Yeah, I just assumed that it was some sort of image generation crap >_< It's funny how this affects me tbh, I think it has almost the same effect as if there would be a boner-pills ad there or something. Or a 'subscribe to read' popups.
It's all just spam, filler content and I did not ask for that.
by boesboes - A lot of software engineers don't have a good feel for this kind of aesthetics or social outcomes. They're playing with their new toy (which is very exciting, let's not ignore that), they're happy it does stuff, but ignore that it can be perceived as ugly and cheap by others. As well as totally bland - every other cheap company is using it too.by pnt12
- 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.