←back to thread

ML needs a new programming language – Interview with Chris Lattner

(signalsandthreads.com)
311 points melodyogonna | 3 comments | 05 Sep 25 11:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.039s | source
Show context
threeducks ◴[05 Sep 25 13:23 UTC] No.45138284[source]▶
When I was young, I enjoyed messing around with new languages, but as time went on, I realized that there is really very little to be gained through new languages that can not be obtained through a new library, without the massive downside of throwing away most of the ecosystem due to incompatibility. Also, CuPy, Triton and Numba already exist right now and are somewhat mature, at least compared to Mojo.
replies(3): >>45138301 #>>45138354 #>>45138471 #
1. jakobnissen ◴[05 Sep 25 13:31 UTC] No.45138354[source]▶
Usually people create languages to address issues that cannot be addressed by a library because they have different semantics on a deeper level.

Like, Rust could not be a C++ library, that does not make sense. Zig could not be a C library. Julia could not be a Python library.

There is some superficial level of abstraction where all programming languages do is interchangeable computation and therefore everything can be achieved in every language. But that superficial sameness doesn't correspond to the reality of programming.

replies(2): >>45138959 #>>45139815 #
2. throwawaymaths ◴[05 Sep 25 14:22 UTC] No.45138959[source]▶
famously people have tried to make erlang a library and failed twice by my count (erjang, ergo)
3. threeducks ◴[05 Sep 25 15:38 UTC] No.45139815[source]▶
I agree with your examples, but is there anything new that Mojo brings to the table that could not be achieved with a Python library?