Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
my123 | on: Mojo 1.0
> Finally, we will continue to progressively open-source more of the Mojo language, as well as components in MAX that we have built with it. Our commitment remains unchanged – we will open source the Mojo compiler and toolchain in 2026.
mort96 | parent
It's categorically uninteresting until and unless that happens. Weird to release 1.0 without it. What are they waiting for?
embedding-shape | root | parent | next
> Weird to release 1.0 without it. What are they waiting for?

Hmm, I've been under the impression that at one point they said it'd be 100% FOSS by the time 1.0 hits, but maybe I misunderstand/misremember the details. But I remember they'd said it'd be FOSS in connection with 1.0, seems weird to do it this way instead of waiting until it's all FOSS then cut 1.0.

boxed | root | parent
They have some event scheduled for next week too.
fluidcruft | root | parent | next
People to tune in to the conference, probably.
redlewel | root | parent | next
This exactly. Doesn't scream confidence that its still closed upon release.
usef- | root | parent
Why? The creators have a strong open source background and it's work to properly open source.
loading story #49267338
burntcaramel | root | parent | next
From listening to Chris Lattner in interviews my guess it’s learning from when Swift became open source. The beta versions of Swift had massive language changes in how value types worked like with Array. Mojo is trying to get this language design locked down first, which is easier to do behind closed doors.

A compiler promising source stability is a different commitment than the compiler’s code being ready for outside contributors. Which is also different to having ABI stability, which took until 5.0 for Swift to achieve (I think Mojo does not have ABI stability as a goal as it doesn’t have to link to OS frameworks).

mort96 | root | parent | next
Massive language changes are easier to do without users. Whether the source code is visible to external people or not is completely irrelevant. I have a few programming language implementations on my GitHub and let me tell you, making manor breaking cha he's to those are easy as pie when I'm the only user.

If Mojo's goal was to make evolution easier, they would have a limited closed beta like what Jai does. But they're not doing that; they make the toolchain available to everyone, they just did this marketing push around releasing version 1.0 of their language. They're making it harder to make breaking changes by seeking users among the general public.

I have no idea why you started talking about outside contributors though, nobody's arguing that they should accept outside contributions. You do t have to do that. It's a completely orthogonal issue to what we're talking about, which is releasing the code under a FOSS license.

jshier | root | parent
That doesn't really make sense, as being open source really has nothing to do with whether the language has an open evolution process. And if they've already declared 1.0, then they've already decided they're stable, so the original point doesn't apply any more.

I feel like they're going to remain closed until Qualcomm is convinced they can't make any money from it being so.

bourbonproof | root | parent | next
I think they are waiting for a wild success in adoption, and if that doesn't happen they can use the IP to pivot to something else without giving the core away to anyone for free/as open-source.
ktm5j | root | parent | next
A lot of people beg to differ. And it's their decision, not yours on when to open source. They have their reasons even if they aren't explaining them to you.
ekianjo | root | parent
also what license will they be going for?