Both C and Python are open source. I can't take Mojo seriously until it does the same.
I am curious about how much work the compiler does to automatically identify available hardware and distribute the load on its own vs how much you need to specify as a developer.
Unfortunately marketing like this tends to trigger an equal and opposite reaction in me.
Anyone with AI programming experience can comment on whether they have made any specific believable claims about performance?
And that company… whatsitsname… X?
In C’s defense it was made before search engines.
As of today, I’d bet it is niche like Julia, R, etc.
Yes, but that's also the issue they address. That you cant just write plain Python for something not covered by libraries and have it be fast. You need to then mess with extending with C, Cython, and so on.
To make a conforming C compiler, someone has to buy the ISO C standard (208 CHF), which other folks will then spend development resources in creating C compilers that obey said standard.
The biggest open source compilers, clang and GCC, only keep being up to date with ISO C, because of the money from IBM, Red-Hat, Apple, ARM, Intel, Green-Hills,... place in assigning company resources to work on them.
Questions about the standard/specification are a different matter:
1. Whether the language has one? (Many languages, both open source and proprietary don't! I believe mojo doesn't have one?)
2. Whether it's available for free (gratis)?
3. Whether it's under a free (libre) license that allows redistribution with modifications?
In any case, it's my understanding that the C standards have largely been community driven efforts that formalized things already being done by major compilers like Gnu rather than driven by the technical needs of industry the way C++ has.
I thought having read it somewhere on one of those embedded forums like embedded.com.
Upon further investigation they are still using their own stuff.
I would debate that.
1. The C language spec isn't code, open source is only concerned with the code.
2. Philosophically, I would say that if you can write and compile standards conforming c code on an open source compiler, and the standard is freely available then to all intents and purposes C is open. It isn't as if GCC doesn't know what the standard is, it isn't as if they can't describe GCC as a c compiler.
It's like saying a bsd or Linux isn't unix, just because they haven't paid some fee.
(eg in practice C is more like a language family, with an attempt to standardize a common core feature set and syntax as an afterthought and call that a "standard" - it's good that it exists, but it's hardly relevant or even useful for real world projects)