upvote
It's probably very messy and not a great baseline for outside contributors to start create PRs.

That's the favorable interpretation, atleast.

reply
Ladybird is Open Source and doesn't accept outside contributions any more same with sqlite and many other projects. Lots of Google's oss projects also are not very open to contribution.

At this point I find it deeply troubling that it isn't open source. I respect Chris I know folks who have worked with him and but at the end of the day I feel too weird about this entire closed source programming language thing.

If we complain to Nvidia about there weird closed source limitations, I think Mojo is just as bad. You don't even know what your compiler might be doing, and if it does something wrong you can't fix it, you now have to file a bug and wait until the gods from above come to your rescue.

I have had similar issues with drivers, I have faced soo many driver bugs in my work and the answer is always write more code that works around it somehow, this warp level is bad, this feature doesn't work with these values, etc. etc. Why can't I fix them, I have often on Linux just pinged the Mesa team about driver bugs with a rough draft of a patch and gotten it fixed, I can even patch and run it myself when I am in a hurry.

I feel like atleast making stuff, source available like Unreal should be the baseline for any "core" software where a bug could possibly be a major blocking issue for a developer. Windows and Mac are very bad with this.

Mac's CoreML has had soo many bugs over the last couple years I have had to email someone I know at the company to get them fixed or try to get into contact with someone.

Intel's drivers have had bugs too but I have had more contacts there which is a wash. AMD well it's AMD...

Either way closed software sucks I don't want to use fully closed stuff unless I don't have a choice people can make what they want of it. I don't really care.

I care much less about just foss.

reply
They could go the sqlite route for it then, no outside code but let us have a look
reply
My guess is that the compiler will be opened next week at Modcon. Honestly? I'm surprised Mojo 1.0 is being released now; I had thought it would be released at Modcon along with the compiler source code, but oh well, 18th August isn't far now.
reply
Who said anything about 4 months? Your "logic" seems to be that they are releasing it in 2026 and there are 4 more months in 2026 so they will be releasing it in 4 months. That's obviously flawed thinking. They will probably be releasing it coincident with their August 18 conference.
reply
So why not either delay the 1.0 release by a week or move the open sourcing up by a week? This "strategy" makes absolutely no sense.
reply
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.

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

Edit to your edit: You asked a question, I answered it. Why be a rude about it, "genius"?

reply