[Certhas]

I see, seems like the design is not complete and a work in progress (which is the same for Mojos Origins concept I think):

"The details of lifetime checking are not yet finalized or specified. Additional syntax to specify the lifetimes of function returns will probably be needed."

I think Rust proved that lifetimes, ownership and borrow checking can be useful for a mainstream language. The discussions in the Mojo context revolve on how to improve the ergonomics of these versus Rust.

[pjmlp]

Contrary to Mojo, plenty of people are using it in HPC, and is open source.

https://hpsf.io/blog/2026/hpsf-project-communities-to-gather...

https://developer.hpe.com/platform/chapel/home

See "Projects Powered by Chapel".

[Certhas]

So? What point are you making? A different language with different design philosophy, has success in a different niche than Mojo is targeting?

[pjmlp]

One is used in production already by key laboratories in HPC research, the other wants to be and is far away from being 1.0.

Chapel current version is 2.8.0.

[MohamedMabrouk]

I don't understand this framing, so? Cpp, Julia are more widely adopted, used in HPC. it does not mean that people shouldn't start, learn new languages.

[pjmlp]

In the LLM age, maybe the focus should be elsewhere instead of syntax.

[MohamedMabrouk]

is that so? People are still reading their code to understand it and ask (or make modifications). even in the (LLM age) language design, readability is still as relevant as before.

I don't see the superficial comparisons between why this new Y when we have X are not really helpful. Languages and system got adopted not for their stated goal only, but for the underlying details capabilities, good design which translates to better user experience and ecosystem growth.

[Certhas]

I don't think Mojo is targeting HPC at all.

[melodyogonna]

Mojo isn't that far away from 1.0. Some point this year is the target