Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hello V-Lang

blog.hackersreboot.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 193 posts

Re: Hello V-Lang

#131

Post by vlang1dot0 »

amedvednikov wrote: post #125
EdSchouten wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I can't respond to amedvednikov's comment below, let me respond to it through yours (sorry): > No things are closed source. Never have been. That's not correct. I seem to remember that when V was released initially, the compiler was available for download in binary form only. The source code was only released later on.

That was before the public release and only lasted for a week. So saying now 2.5 years later some things are closed source is ridiculous.

Could you point to the C2V source?

Re: Hello V-Lang

#132

Post by vlang1dot0 »

amedvednikov wrote: post #70
kgeist wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you consider writing an interpreter for the quick dev cycle mode instead? Compilation times are down to 0 seconds (if we ignore the parsing time). As LuaJIT's Mike Pall has shown, a well-thought out interpreter can be as fast as a naive compiler. It's also more portable, and experiments are easier to introduce. The main page at vlang.io focuses on compilation speed, not runtime speed. You also admit that the fast…

Runtime speed is as fast as it gets, because it's C. Writing an interpreter is a huge task. It works well without it. Actually I'd say it's quicker, because interpreters have startup costs.

No, "it's fast because it's C" doesn't hold. You can write slow code in any language.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#133

Post by vlang1dot0 »

amedvednikov wrote: post #116
cyber_kinetist wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is all the extra copying that autofree has to do related to the lack of move semantics in the language? Nim had to introduce a bunch of new language constructs/semantics to support their ORC backend, which is the solution that’s similar to yours. (See https://nim-lang.org/docs/destructors.html .) I expected V to move in the same direction but hadn’t found any discussion of move semantics in the docs so I found it str…

V will never have move semantics. Complicates the language too much.

So how do you plan to make autofree work without move semantics, an ownership model or borrowing annotations? If your answer is "like Lobster", then how do you plan to deal with the semantic differences between those languages which the Lobster model relies on?

Re: Hello V-Lang

#134

Post by vlang1dot0 »

amedvednikov wrote: post #121
gus_massa wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have time to help every single open source project that makes bold claims. I also don't demand anything, I just moved V to my ignored list. It may be unfair, and I may take a look in a few years again if there are enough solid news about V floating around.

All claims on the website are valid with latest V.

Really?

- No null

Then what is `voidptr(0)`?

- No global variables

https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#global-va...

At least add "by default" to the web site.

- No undefined values

Which is done by initializing all values to 0. Probably not a good idea to do that for references though. (See also "no null values")

- No undefined behavior

`*voidptr(0)` is accepted by the compiler. Unsigned integer overflow is accepted by the compiler and UB in the generated C. How can V generate C code free of UB when it can't even generate C code that compiles all the time?

- Pure functions by default

Excluding I/O, one of the biggest sources of impurity, from your definition of pure is useless.

- Generics

You don't actually have generics, you have templates. Kind of ironic since Go has actually added generics before V has managed to get a 0.3 release out. The distinction is this: with generics the compiler is able to validate that the generic code type checks prior to substitution/monomorphization. With templated code, it's not possible to perform type checking until the concrete types have been instantiated. V implements templates with all the drawbacks including code bloat and inflated compile times that comes with it.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#135

Post by Rochus »

agumonkey wrote: post #98
Rochus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem? Is the communication not up to the author? And shouldn't people rather help out than just make demands on an open source project?

That is absurd. He's not saying "I have an idea, and with a bit of help we might reach extraordinary numbers", he claims "better faster leaner than everybody else".

It's not uncommon and no bad practice at all to fully specify a language before it is fully implemented. There were a couple of languages where the compiler took even many years to come into existence after the language was published, or was never finished. Other people - like e.g. me - develop the language specification and compiler in parallel. Just different ways to look at it.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#136

Post by bvrmn »

amedvednikov wrote: post #78
pwdisswordfish9 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, the design philosophy seems ripped out of their (former, to their credit!) playbook. https://twitter.com/woketopus/status/1447150924846313475

V's design is completely opposite.

Early PHP lack of any design is the same of V.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#137

Post by agumonkey »

Rochus wrote: post #135
agumonkey wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absurd. He's not saying "I have an idea, and with a bit of help we might reach extraordinary numbers", he claims "better faster leaner than everybody else".

It's not uncommon and no bad practice at all to fully specify a language before it is fully implemented. There were a couple of languages where the compiler took even many years to come into existence after the language was published, or was never finished. Other people - like e.g. me - develop the language specification and compiler in parallel. Just different ways to look at it.

How is it related to spec'ing the language. It's just fuzzy use of terms to appear extraordinary. That's all. Btw he still didn't answer my simple question, meanwhile everybody is commenting saying how nice the community is, how people should help instead of criticizing and deflecting the actual issue people had with the project.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#138

Post by Rochus »

agumonkey wrote: post #137
Rochus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not uncommon and no bad practice at all to fully specify a language before it is fully implemented. There were a couple of languages where the compiler took even many years to come into existence after the language was published, or was never finished. Other people - like e.g. me - develop the language specification and compiler in parallel. Just different ways to look at it.

How is it related to spec'ing the language. It's just fuzzy use of terms to appear extraordinary. That's all. Btw he still didn't answer my simple question, meanwhile everybody is commenting saying how nice the community is, how people should help instead of criticizing and deflecting the actual issue people had with the project.

> How is it related to spec'ing the language

You wrote a bit further up: "The problem is that in the initial releases the "high goals" were listed as "features" of the language". The "features" you mention are obviously the specification. Have e.g. a look at how long they specified Algol 68 and when finally a compiler appeared; CPL is yet another good example; actually at that time Wirth was one of the few who delivered a compiler simultaneously with the language specification.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#140

Post by Tozen »

sieste wrote: post #63
Normille wrote: post #2

What a piss-poor excuse for an article! Reads like a press release; all puff and no down sides. Anyone with any familiarity with the V project will know it's been mired in controversy from day 1, thanks to the [often hyperbolic] claims of its inventor. All of which seems to have passed the author of this article by, as he just gushingly repeats them unquestioningly. Mind you, he does describe V as "all new", so maybe…

HN is usually an incredibly welcoming and encouraging community. Any criticisms are honest, sometimes harsh and maybe on the overly sceptical side, but mostly decent and civilised ... Unless Vlang comes up. > What a piss-poor excuse for an article! The article is no different from many new-sexy-js-framework blog posts I see here, but these never get that amount of hate. Why is that?

Good point. It's odd how certain people get so fired up to bash and troll Vlang, then also state they never use it or refer to some controversy from 3 years ago that has lost its relevancy.

Additionally, somehow other newer languages like Odin, Crystal, and Zig seem to escape their wraith and trolling despite having some similar developmental issues. Very selective "hate".

Post reply on HN