Mojo Is FASTER Than Rust
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Related videos
Why is the Rust Compiler So SLOW?
ThePrimeTime
98.2k views
PewDiePie is more based than you
ThePrimeTime
348.9k views
C Must Die
ThePrimeTime
222.3k views
Why Buying GPUs Is a Disaster
ThePrimeTime
211.0k views
40x Faster Binary Search
ThePrimeTime
145.1k views
C++ Is An Absolute Blast
ThePrimeTime
303.3k views
The SQLite Rewrite In Rust
ThePrimeTime
224.1k views
Maybe HTMX Is Bad...
ThePrimeTime
161.7k views
An Optimization That Is Impossible In Rust
ThePrimeTime
127.2k views
what is wrong with rust and linux????
ThePrimeTime
229.4k views
Top Comments (10)
How to scare a VIM user? Make them use their mouse 9:08
'Tensor is one eigenvalue less than elevensor' 😂
What an idiomatic pythonic nascent article this was.
write bad code -> write optimized code in different language -> post article -> wait till prime posts it with clickbait title
No performance benchmark articles or claims should be taken seriously unless they provide the full code examples, environment details, and details of all optimizations applied. Saying x is faster than y is "trust me bro" level.
I taught a bioinformatician that he could run python or rust inside the database they were using: Postgres He took one of his jobs and moved it to the db to skip the overhead. It was a bit more than 100 times faster than how they had been doing that task.
iterators/generators/coroutines are actually faster than traditional (while and for-in) loops in python because they are very thin c-wrappers under the hood (thinner than the original ones).
Watch Mojo be the name of some obscure snake species.
The rust crate is searching for both '\n' and '\r' while the Mojo function is only searching for one character which defaults to '\n'. Is it any wonder the Mojo version is faster when the Rust version is doing twice the work?
The end of the blog post of viralinstruction about this benchmark sums up my thought about Mojo and Julia perfectly: To me, Julia seems like such an obvious solution to the two-language problem in bioinformatics (and in deep learning). All the hard problems with bridging speed and dynamism have essentially been solved in Julia. At the same time, the language remains niche, mostly because it still has too many rough edges and usability issues, such as latency, the inability to statically analyse Julia or compile executable binaries. But these issues are not fundamental to the language - they're rather in the category of ordinary engineering problems. Solving them is mostly "just" a matter of putting in tens of thousands of professional dev hours, which is a matter of getting tens of millions of euros to pay for hiring people to do the job. It does grate me then, when someone else manages to raise 100M dollars on the premise of reinventing the wheel [a.k.a. Mojo] to solve the exact same problem, but from a worse starting point because they start from zero and they want to retain Python compatibility. Think of what money like that could do to Julia!
Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge
- Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
- Chat with videos, export text & PDF
- $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research
Free forever plan • All features unlocked
Top Comments (10)
How to scare a VIM user? Make them use their mouse 9:08
'Tensor is one eigenvalue less than elevensor' 😂
What an idiomatic pythonic nascent article this was.
write bad code -> write optimized code in different language -> post article -> wait till prime posts it with clickbait title
No performance benchmark articles or claims should be taken seriously unless they provide the full code examples, environment details, and details of all optimizations applied. Saying x is faster than y is "trust me bro" level.
I taught a bioinformatician that he could run python or rust inside the database they were using: Postgres He took one of his jobs and moved it to the db to skip the overhead. It was a bit more than 100 times faster than how they had been doing that task.
iterators/generators/coroutines are actually faster than traditional (while and for-in) loops in python because they are very thin c-wrappers under the hood (thinner than the original ones).
Watch Mojo be the name of some obscure snake species.
The rust crate is searching for both '\n' and '\r' while the Mojo function is only searching for one character which defaults to '\n'. Is it any wonder the Mojo version is faster when the Rust version is doing twice the work?
The end of the blog post of viralinstruction about this benchmark sums up my thought about Mojo and Julia perfectly: To me, Julia seems like such an obvious solution to the two-language problem in bioinformatics (and in deep learning). All the hard problems with bridging speed and dynamism have essentially been solved in Julia. At the same time, the language remains niche, mostly because it still has too many rough edges and usability issues, such as latency, the inability to statically analyse Julia or compile executable binaries. But these issues are not fundamental to the language - they're rather in the category of ordinary engineering problems. Solving them is mostly "just" a matter of putting in tens of thousands of professional dev hours, which is a matter of getting tens of millions of euros to pay for hiring people to do the job. It does grate me then, when someone else manages to raise 100M dollars on the premise of reinventing the wheel [a.k.a. Mojo] to solve the exact same problem, but from a worse starting point because they start from zero and they want to retain Python compatibility. Think of what money like that could do to Julia!