Mojo 1.0

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 reply: Having written a lot of Mojo over the last two year, just for fun, it's a really cool language. Ownership model adjacent to Rust, comptime in the realm of Zig, rich type system, first class SIMD support, etc. Performance wise it's the first language in long time that isn't just an LLVM wrapper. LLVM is still involved, but they are using it differently than say, Rust or Zig.Very excited for Mojo once it's open sourced later this year.

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. reply: 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

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. reply: 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

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. reply: > 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....

> 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. reply: It's probably very messy and not a great baseline for outside contributors to start create PRs.That's the favorable interpretation, atleast.

So is the language itself proprietary licensed, with standard library Apache 2?Am I understanding the current state of things correct?

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. reply: $3.9 billion is not an acquihire!

Apparently they'll be open sourcing it on August 18th, one week from now.

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.

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

Sorry Chris, love you but will not use a closed language.

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.

> following the standards of how mature languages (e.g. C++) evolve over timeThis gave me a chuckle. When I think of languages evolving their standards, I do think of C++. But not, you know, in a good way.

I wish Modular/Qualcomm good luck with this. We would be well served with a good alternative to Cuda. I will be looking at Modcon to see how serious they are with Mojo's ecosystem. (Hopefully it won't be yet another SYCL).

never has their been a language release so uninspiring

the 1.0 release of Mojo, it's a pretty big event, of course first thing I'm greeted with is an AI slop image on the top of the blog postawesome

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.

"We arbitrarily decided we are at 1.0 now, this is a major milestone."