News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Mojo 1.0. Parent comment

Re:Mojo 1.0 by grim_io on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @06:20PM (#49265271)
I never understood this.

What kind of special whitespace requirements do people have?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mojo 1.0 by pansa2 on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @07:09PM (#49265725)
I like significant invitation, but I still wouldn’t choose it if I was designing a language today.

Functional-style programming has become much more popular since Python was designed in the 1990s, and there doesn’t seem to be a good way to have Python-like significant indentation and also support true anonymous functions.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mojo 1.0 by maleldil on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @09:14PM (#49266710)
Haskell has significant indentation and anonymous functions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mojo 1.0 by ameliaquining on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @10:32PM (#49267208)
Haskell's significant indentation is, in my experience, much worse than Python's at fading into the background by matching what you would have done anyway.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mojo 1.0 by winding on Wednesday August 12, 2026 @12:55AM (#49267945)
As I understand it, Mojo’s goal is to be able to match state of the art performance for parallel algorithms and be able to use the exotic GPU hardware. A functional style is not necessarily productive in that context.

One interesting PL concept they implement are linear types https://mojolang.org/docs/std/traits/anytype/AnyType/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mojo 1.0 by jampekka on Wednesday August 12, 2026 @03:14AM (#49268850)
Scala 3, F#, CoffeeScript, Nim, Haskell, Elm, PureScript...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mojo 1.0 by pjmlp on Wednesday August 12, 2026 @04:35AM (#49269391)
True anonymous functions has nothing to do with indentation, ML derived languages are also indentation based.

Guido doesn't want them in the language, as simple as that.

[ Parent | on HN ]