ML needs a new programming language – Interview with Chris Lattner

(signalsandthreads.com)

311 points melodyogonna | 1 comments | 05 Sep 25 11:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | 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 #

dwattttt ◴[05 Sep 25 13:25 UTC] No.45138301[source]▶

>>45138284 #

If a learning a new language didn't change how you think about programming, it wasn't a language worth learning.

replies(2): >>45139655 #>>45149431 #

1. threeducks ◴[05 Sep 25 15:25 UTC] No.45139655[source]▶

>>45138301 #

Learning new languages did change how I think about programming. For example, Clojure's immutability and functional nature had a strong influence on how I write my (mostly Python) code these days. I learned how to write efficient code for CPUs with C and C++, and for GPUs with CUDA and OpenCL. I learned math with Matlab and Octave, and declarative programming with Prolog.

With Mojo, on the other hand, I think a library (or improvements to an existing library) would have been a better approach. A new language needlessly forks the developer community and duplicates work. But I can see the monetary incentives that made the Mojo developers choose this path, so good for them.

↑