People are correct I didn't explain my position.

LLVM: Pretty much everyone who has created a programming language with it has complained about its design. gingerbill, Jon Blow, and Andrew Kelley have all complained about it. LLVM is a good idea, but it that idea was executed better by Ken Thompson with his C compiler for Plan 9, and then again with his Go compiler design. Ken decided to create his own "architecture agnostic" assembly, which is very similar to the IR idea with LLVM.

Swift: I was very excited with the first release of Swift. But it ultimately did not have a very focused vision outlined for it. Because of this, it has morphed into a mess. It tries to be everything for everyone, like C++, and winds up being mediocre, and slow to compile to top it off.

Mojo isn't doesn't exist for the public yet. I hope it turns out to be awesome, but I'm just not going to get my hopes up this time.

You don't explain or support your position, you are calling Lattner names. That's not helpful to me or anyone else if we are trying to evaluate his work. Swift has millions of users as does Mojo and Modular in general. These are not trivial accomplishments.

> Everything Chris Lattner has done has been a "successful mess".

I don't have an emotional reaction to this, i.e. I don't think you're being mean, but it is wrong and reductive, which people usually will concisely, and perhaps reductively, describe as "mean".

Why is it wrong?

LLVM is great.

Chris Lattner left Apple a *decade* ago, & thus has ~0 impact or responsibility on Swift interop with C++ today.

Swift is a fun language to write, hence, why they shoehorned it in, in the first place.

Mojo is fine, but I wouldn't really know how you or I would judge it. For me, I'm not super-opinionated on Python, and it doesn't diverge heavily from it afaik.

That's why there's nothing that comes close to LLVM and MLIR, right?

If he's such a horrible engineer then we should have lots of LLVM replacements, right?