Ew, their claimed benchmarking is ridiculously biased. “We completely restructured the algorithm to be more efficient, so our language is faster than yours.” and “We ran our benchmarks on a faster computer than we ran the Python benchmarks.” Not a good look to lie through your teeth like that.
They also claimed to be faster than C++ in the beginning, but they failed to mention that the C++ code was unoptimized single-thread code while the Mojo version was SIMD-vectorized and multithreaded. It’s only after people criticized them for that that they started calling the C++ code “scalar C++”. Scientific rigor is lacking in their benchmarks.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos
Ew, their claimed benchmarking is ridiculously biased. “We completely restructured the algorithm to be more efficient, so our language is faster than yours.” and “We ran our benchmarks on a faster computer than we ran the Python benchmarks.” Not a good look to lie through your teeth like that.
They also claimed to be faster than C++ in the beginning, but they failed to mention that the C++ code was unoptimized single-thread code while the Mojo version was SIMD-vectorized and multithreaded. It’s only after people criticized them for that that they started calling the C++ code “scalar C++”. Scientific rigor is lacking in their benchmarks.