I think you have a typo mixing up AGPL and GPL. I agree that it would be hard to imagine a company being okay with the AGPL but not the GPL. On the off-chance that it isn't a typo, could you explain why a company might be okay with AGPL but not GPL?
Hi wryl. I'm interested in hearing your follow-up to this post, so I tried to add your log to my feed reader, but I couldn't find an rss/atom feed, which is the only way I'll remember to check back in. Do you have a feed I can follow?
I have a habit of hand-writing the markup for the site, so it's missing a few features people expect from things like statically generated sites or hosted blog platforms.
I'm watching this thread for accessibility and feedback, and am taking the suggestions to heart!
Still not open-source it looks like [2]. I'm not willing to create an account right now. Can someone who has an account post what the pricing looks like if any? I'd also be curious what other agreements you have to make other than the terms of service[1] you agree to when making an account.
I really do wonder who they're targeting as a paying customer. What dev/team is all of these things
1. Getting paid to work on ML to such an extent that perf is important (enough)
2. Comfortable leaving the warm confines of python and a huge ecosystem
3. Willing to learn a brand new, closed source, beta maturity language
4. Does inference on CPU
5. Willing to run their inference pipeline behind some FaaS layer because that's how I'm assuming modular plans to make money? The alternative is an honest to goodness licensed compiler and that seems even more farfetched (though I guess not beyond the realm of possibility).
What I wouldn't give to be in the room when they're pitching VCs because they've managed to raise a lot of money for what looks like a TAM of like 5 people.
Yeah, and I assume in the future Python will get its own JIT or AOT compiler, if people really demand it. Most Python for scientific programming is just a higher level glue code for the C++ underneath.
I'm not willing to make an account either, I'm too scared what Modular will do with my data for privacy reasons, especially seeing that giant Google sign in button.
Hopefully, someone will and sign up so that we know Modular intends to do with our data once they collect it.
With all due respect - scared of what? I'm genuinely curious what you're worried about. Can you give me some real world examples of a possible negative repercussion from signing up? I haven't signed up. I don't have an account, just been a curious lurker for the Mojo thing over the past couple of months.
0:16 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQh9es5gfpo, says "we'll be open sourcing documentation"... by the end of the year. Documentation? It will have taken a full year to open source documentation. Congrats.
I bit the bullet. After singing in via google, its just a page with instructions on installing the Mojo SDK. Nothing about pricing but on their FAQ section they do talk about the telemetry data they collect and how to disable it
This is super disingenuous in a world where things like the GPL exist and any other license that prevents you from putting further restrictions on the combined product.
Also, Git had it since forever, and since GitHub's diff view isn't particularly convenient for browsing multi-commit PRs you usually review the changes using Git anyway.
That said, I'd ask the contributor to tidy up the branch first. It's kinda disrespecting to ask others to review branches in such state.
If you'd like to try these tools, someone has copied the source onto github[1] from the now defunct homepage. I've only been playing with this for a few minutes, but the only "problem" I've run into so far is that 2html omits the <!DOCTYPE> declaration, but that isn't really a problem for me since I was piping the output through tidy anyway.
I've been looking for a nice way of batch-editing html using some sort of sed-like tool, and this is the best option I've seen yet. Beyond that I just find it a neat idea.
I'm a very happy Julia user, but what's the point of this blog post? It seems to just be regurgitating a bunch of points from the official 1.9 announcement[1]. There was also significant discussion of the 1.9 announcement on hacker news only a couple of days ago, so posting it here for discussion seems silly.
The title undersells the magnitude of the change a bit in my opinion. By default, mastodon now encourages new users to sign-up on https://mastodon.social which has caused a bit of a kerfuffle in the fediverse.
Personally, I'm largely ambivalent to the change; I understand the reasoning, and it's what https://element.io has been doing for https://matrix.org since the beginning. It is more than a bit of a sea-change though given the fediverse's prevailing culture.
I tend to agree that Julia and other modern programming languages with hygenic macros aren't "homoiconic". Maybe GP is making a point about the title of this presentation? Read generously, maybe he's criticizing calling this homoiconicity by comparing it to Julia which originally claimed to be homoiconic but removed the claim from its website because of contentiousness[1]?
He could be making that comparison, but I read the comment as "I use Julia btw", and that's what I took issue with. I wrote a comment to dismiss it and save face for Julia programmers.
To be fair to yourself, LispSyntax.jl is more of a proof of concept than something that anyone would want to actually do significant coding in as can be seen by the TODO list in the README[1]. It also hasn't seen any active development in several years.
Just tried it; sorta works; the most basic examples run, but the repl is broken; probably designed for an older version of Julia; I'll see what I can do with it. Anyway, thanks!
