5 ms·

> expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like Mojo looks nice but with coding agents the landscape has shifted at least in my view. T

> expert C++ programmers as what they imagine a good C++ will look like Mojo looks nice but with coding agents the landscape has shifted at least in my view. There is no need for DSLs and abstractions that reduce human cognitive load. So, I still struggle with the usecase for Mojo. If you want close to metal performance, code in something that touches metal (c,c++), and doesnt abstract you away from it or require unsafe primitives. As a programmer who cares for performance, you want the least separation between your tools and the hw in the sense that you can visualize precisely what the hw is doing with no abstractions to hide it.

ameliaquining 28d ago
I'm confused, C and C++ do require unsafe primitives? I think I must be misunderstanding your comment somehow.
- deleted 28d ago
  [deleted]
- saghm 28d ago
  It sounds like they were saying that they think you shouldn't have to use a language primitive like `unsafe` to be able to do the stuff that C/C++ does. (To be clear, I completely disagree with this viewpoint, because I don't think there's any evidence at all that agents won't struggle with the same fundamental problems in writing C/C++ that humans do, but I think it's what they're saying).
  - deleted 28d ago
    [deleted]
stasomatic 28d ago
that you can visualize precisely what the hw is doing with no abstractions to hide it. How can one hold the nuances of different architectures in their head, unless you stick to something like a console that doesn't evolve much for a half a decade or more? Don't you want at least some abstraction?
- deleted 28d ago
  [deleted]
melodyogonna 28d ago
How I wish people will stop spamming me with this garbage, or at least do some basic research first; C/C++ are not lower-level than Mojo, in fact, a core semantic of Mojo is that the programmer is as explicit as possible while defining what they want to accomplish rather than relying on compiler optimisations. You have facilities to interact with MLIR, LLVM, and Assembly intrinsics... in fact, most (if not all) of built-in Mojo types is exactly this, types wrapping low-level compiler MLIR intrisics.

ameliaquining 28d ago

I'm confused, C and C++ do require unsafe primitives? I think I must be misunderstanding your comment somehow.

deleted 28d ago
[deleted]
saghm 28d ago
It sounds like they were saying that they think you shouldn't have to use a language primitive like `unsafe` to be able to do the stuff that C/C++ does. (To be clear, I completely disagree with this viewpoint, because I don't think there's any evidence at all that agents won't struggle with the same fundamental problems in writing C/C++ that humans do, but I think it's what they're saying).
- deleted 28d ago
  [deleted]

stasomatic 28d ago

that you can visualize precisely what the hw is doing with no abstractions to hide it. How can one hold the nuances of different architectures in their head, unless you stick to something like a console that doesn't evolve much for a half a decade or more? Don't you want at least some abstraction?

deleted 28d ago
[deleted]

melodyogonna 28d ago

How I wish people will stop spamming me with this garbage, or at least do some basic research first; C/C++ are not lower-level than Mojo, in fact, a core semantic of Mojo is that the programmer is as explicit as possible while defining what they want to accomplish rather than relying on compiler optimisations. You have facilities to interact with MLIR, LLVM, and Assembly intrinsics... in fact, most (if not all) of built-in Mojo types is exactly this, types wrapping low-level compiler MLIR intrisics.