I am already using agentic orchestration tools where the language is irrelevant, e.g. Opal, Workato, Boomi.

The evolution of iPaaS low coding tools.

Just like you can take some high level code in a dynamic language and expect the JIT compiler to do the best every time, under completly different execution patterns, so will LLM based development eventually become like that.

COBOL is already laughing at the efforts to write so much English text to keep AI on track.

Probably because the creator created both LLVM and MLIR.

I'd assume Mojo does more complex transformations at the MLIR level than Rust does at its MIR level.

Mojo is much faster than Rust, but slower than Go. I don't have much experience with Zig.

Mojo is designed to be very fast to compile, so many decisions were made to keep the core language simple, one example is in `where` clause, the checking there happens entirely in the parser. It can be stupid in situations where other languages are smart, and make you explicitly do checks that could be inferred in other languages. But on the other hand, it can be very fast since it doesn't have to do all the complicated resolving.

Another reason is how LLVM is used, Modular found ways to parralize LLVM code generation by introducing novel techniques that'll likely become a lot more popular with other languages.

Honestly that doesn't really feel like a glowing endorsement of the language. "They announced a crazy goal, then rolled it back because they grossly underestimated how hard it was" doesn't give me confidence in either the long-term design or the people making it, and I feel like "a Python-like language" is both a lot less interesting and a lot more subjective. If the discussions in this thread around significant whitespace aren't already an indication, which parts of Python people think are good and which aren't will vary by person, so without saying more it's hard to tell whether it's a a language someone will love or hate.

To preempt all of the inevitable responses: yes, I'm aware that this was started by the same guy who started LLVM and Swift. That doesn't automatically mean anything he comes up with will be great, especially when it's specifically trying to be "like" a language that doesn't really have much on common with either of those; there are plenty of instances of very smart people having an overabundance of confidence when jumping into something they assume they'll excel at and getting humbled. I'd also argue both Swift and LLVM have some common criticisms that very much are in line with the same concern I've expressed here (i.e. long term design suffering due to expanded or pivoted scope; even the name LLVM alludes to some of that history of having a somewhat different goal originally). His name is enough that I'll probably always click to take a first look at anything he comes up with, but I'm not going to ignore things that seem like issues because of that either. Smart people don't need to held to a lower standard because their work should be able to speak for itself.

Part of that is because there isn’t yet a package format and a central repository. I have a few libraries I would like to contribute or merge with similar projects.

2026 and still talking about python indentation? what's next, `goto` gripes?

When has it ever been an issue in use?

People complained about this in 1999 but then I used it and it's never mattered.

Oh nooooo, they fucked it up too. Why would someone make a language that’s whitespace sensitive? It’s confounding.

Significant indentation is why people love python. Can 2 billion people be wrong?

> 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.

From 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).

People to tune in to the conference, probably.

This exactly. Doesn't scream confidence that its still closed upon release.

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.

A 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.

also what license will they be going for?

For 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.

It almost feels like they were paying more in the hopes of owning the next LLVM or Swift based on the name on the tin rather than basing the price on the product itself.

What else are you going to write CUDA kernels in that will be better than Mojo?

This doesn't compete with Python.

Like if someone wrote a competitor to VHDL that looked like TEMU Python... Python would not be its competitor, VHDL would.

There were competitors. Pascal and assembly, most obviously.

It was just a different culture. There was no expectation that everything should be free.

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.

That 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.

I wouldn't say there was a pivot, AI development has explicitly been the goal since launch.

A lot of fancy words to say this is slop.

Oh wow a business pivoted to AI what a shocker lmao (not directed at you/mocking you, to be clear)

nah, i just have no interest in this endless slop. It's so fucking obvious, so cheap, and soooo disrespectful imo

I think AI use will soon be classified as a health risk worse then smoking, drug and gambling.

There’s no obsession. It’s an obvious, ugly slop.

[flagged]

I don't know why you're responding to me ... I simply pointed out how ludicrous was the statement that it will be 4 months before it is released.

And intelligent imaginative people can make quite a bit of sense out of announcing 1.0 prior to the conference. Open sourcing it may require efforts that simply didn't coincide with that announcement. I see this sort of pronouncement in the chat for the chess.com daily puzzle all the time -- "the solution makes no sense!" ... and yet it always does.

P.S.

> "They will probably be releasing it coincident with their August 18 conference."

Yes, I know I wrote that, genius.

And no, I didn't ask a question, and that's not a rational explanation of why you responded. And I don't owe anyone an explanation of my attitude or tone. If you don't like it then don't interact with me.