I felt like I learned more about the author than Mojo.
- Never actually runs it. Seriously.
- Wants us to know it's definitely not a real parser as compared to Needlepoint...then 1000 words later, "real parser" means "handles \r\n...and validates 1st & 3rd lines begin with @ and +...seq and qual lines have the same length".
- At the end, "Julia is faster!!!!" off a one-off run on their own machine, comparing it to benchmark times on the Mojo website
It reads as an elaborate way to indicate they don't like that the Mojo website says it's faster, coupled to a entry-level explanation of why it is faster, coupled to disturbingly poor attempts to benchmark without running Mojo code
I feel like if you believe my conclusion was that "Julia is faster" then you are missing the point.
The point is that the original blogs claims of "Mojo is faster" isn't right - it's comparing different programs. That implementation in Mojo is faster than Needletail - but that doesn't say very much and I prove it by also beating Needletail in Julia by using the same algorithm as Mojo does. So it's the algorithm. Not Mojo. Not Julia.
Also, did you even read my discussion on how much a parser ought to validate? Your resume is completely missing the point.
It's just, the content length : content ratio is high - all I got out of it was you don't like the Mojo speed claim & genomics parsing is text parsing*
Don't take that the wrong way, I feel bad. It's just bad for me - I'm a mobile developer, so I was way out of my domain, I've barely written Python, Julia is a complete abstraction to me outside of HN. An alternative way to think about it is, I shouldn't have expected an in-depth analysis of Mojo.
* i mean, everything is bytes parsing, but it always tickles me when I find out other domains aren't castles in the sky, speaking an alien language
I yeah I get that. If you were expecting a review of Mojo, then the post falls short.
Maybe the title should have emphasized the benchmark as being in question, not Mojo itself.
- Never actually runs it. Seriously.
- Wants us to know it's definitely not a real parser as compared to Needlepoint...then 1000 words later, "real parser" means "handles \r\n...and validates 1st & 3rd lines begin with @ and +...seq and qual lines have the same length".
- At the end, "Julia is faster!!!!" off a one-off run on their own machine, comparing it to benchmark times on the Mojo website
It reads as an elaborate way to indicate they don't like that the Mojo website says it's faster, coupled to a entry-level explanation of why it is faster, coupled to disturbingly poor attempts to benchmark without running Mojo code