upvote

points

by flakiness19 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby sidkshatriya6 hours ago|
next
[-]
> but the language is still very young and we believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision moves faster than a community-driven effort.

This is a false dichotomy.

For years Golang was developed in the open but strictly moved on the vision of its creators rather than being "community-driven". Many other venerable open source projects don't involve the community in serious strategy discussions. The community mainly acts as a bug finder/fixer. Mojo could do the same: be open source but choose its own priorities internally.

I'm guessing that Mojo is still looking for a monetization strategy. Keeping important things proprietary in Mojo at this stage helps I'm sure (nothing wrong with that).

But I feel the era of proprietary programming language play is over. Unless you create some hardware (which the Mojo guys don't) it's going to be tough.

reply
upvoteby chrislattner16 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Indeed, this fall 100%
reply
upvoteby nextaccountic7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Why didn't you just do this the sqlite way, and open source this, some time ago?

Release the source, but don't take code from external contributors. Take issues and discussion instead

reply
upvoteby bmandale18 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
open source does not mean open community. you can just throw tarballs over the wall
reply
upvoteby adamnemecek19 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
This is exactly how the open sourcing of Swift went so I imagine it will be the same.
reply
upvoteby otabdeveloper418 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> We're committed to open-sourcing all of Mojo

Translated from corporatese it means "it will never happen".

reply
upvoteby jlundberg17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
With Chris Lattners track record, there is little reason to doubt they actually will open source this.
reply
upvoteby ModernMech17 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It’s not Chris Lattner who gets to make the call though. He has investors to the tune of $300 million, and making them happy is the reason it hasn’t been done yet. A lot of people, very reasonably, relieve it’s not possible to satisfy them and also the development community, and when when push comes to shove it’ll be the investors who win because they have the money. So it’s not Chris Lattner’s track record that makes people worried — it’s the track record of investors choosing control over openness, which is a pretty solid record.
reply
upvoteby MohamedMabrouk17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
how is it in investors self interest to keep a programming language (some thing which no one makes money on today) closed? It also means that library authors can't reason about their code well enough because they don't know the language internals, this also hurts ecosystem growth. Their is no money to be made with a closed language that no body uses. probably modular investors know this.
reply
upvoteby otabdeveloper44 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
"We're committed" in official speech means "this thing has absolute lowest priority".
reply