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

V Language Review

mawfig.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 336 posts

Re: V Language Review

#271

Post by vlang1dot0 »

amedvednikov wrote: post #263
lifthrasiir wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was not using the tcc backend for the first execution, then why would the second execution without tcc.exe be timed out? (I have also checked strace just like the OP.) It seems unlikely that the first execution and the second execution use the same gcc and still behave in such diverging ways. And if my reasoning is incorrect, please do not instinctively reply to me (I had enough) and put a proper diagnostic to t…

You're not using tcc, because the language literally tells you so, you get a GCC error, and you get 10x slower compilation time. I think it's pretty clear. Anyway, now that we are clear on the compilation speed claim, can you please list a couple of those extraordinary claims?

Did you even bother to read what he pasted? Tcc is used in the first set of commands that do not terminate.

Re: V Language Review

#272

Post by [deleted] »

rurban wrote: post #250
thayne wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know of a case where rust code violates memory safety without the use of an unsafe block, file a bug and it will probably be fixed within a release or two. "Fearless concurrency" is more subjective, but rust code (again with the caveat that there isn't unsafe code, or unsafe cose upholds all unvariants) dows eliminate certain classes of concurrency bugs. Although, dreadlocks are definitely possible, and certai…

do you your self a favor and search their ticket system for stack overflow. the list gets longer, not smaller. and looking at their compiler it's clear why. stack-allocation of vars is fine and dandy, but comparable to vlang's famous unbounded autofree system. alloca() is dangerous for a reason. unsafe vec, really?? mutexes in threads, really?? concurrent blocking IO in this decade?? also read their docs about their…

[deleted]

Re: V Language Review

#273

Post by Tozen »

klyrs wrote: post #269
amedvednikov wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since the author has a habit of overpromising and even declaring things finished before even starting on them Do you have any examples?

TFA has plenty. Don't let yourself get mired in fights on the orange site. Instead, spend the energy fixing bugs and you'll meet less criticism in the future.

I think that V developers and contributors are well within their rights to address criticisms of their work by detractors. Additionally, the OP has ran away from engaging in debate about various errors and opinions from their review, in an apparent attempt to leave an arguably underhanded one-sided negative impression (which includes suggesting not to use).

So we have a situation where the OP created a hit piece with no feedback from V developers or its community, and detractors are elaborating on it, that leaves few other public options to address it.

Re: V Language Review

#274

Post by klyrs »

Tozen wrote: post #273
klyrs wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA has plenty. Don't let yourself get mired in fights on the orange site. Instead, spend the energy fixing bugs and you'll meet less criticism in the future.

I think that V developers and contributors are well within their rights to address criticisms of their work by detractors. Additionally, the OP has ran away from engaging in debate about various errors and opinions from their review, in an apparent attempt to leave an arguably underhanded one-sided negative impression (which includes suggesting not to use). So we have a situation where the OP created a hit piece with…

OP made a good faith effort hoping to find a sweet and working language, and the current implementation fell short of its long-advertised promises and accomplishments. That you're calling it a "hit piece" is telling. Y'all are well within your rights to waste your time arguing. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time.

Re: V Language Review

#275

Post by amedvednikov »

klyrs wrote: post #269
amedvednikov wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since the author has a habit of overpromising and even declaring things finished before even starting on them Do you have any examples?

TFA has plenty. Don't let yourself get mired in fights on the orange site. Instead, spend the energy fixing bugs and you'll meet less criticism in the future.

You made a very strong accusation.

Please list the things that were declared finished before even starting on them.

Re: V Language Review

#276

Post by amedvednikov »

klyrs wrote: post #274
Tozen wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that V developers and contributors are well within their rights to address criticisms of their work by detractors. Additionally, the OP has ran away from engaging in debate about various errors and opinions from their review, in an apparent attempt to leave an arguably underhanded one-sided negative impression (which includes suggesting not to use). So we have a situation where the OP created a hit piece with…

OP made a good faith effort hoping to find a sweet and working language, and the current implementation fell short of its long-advertised promises and accomplishments. That you're calling it a "hit piece" is telling. Y'all are well within your rights to waste your time arguing. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time.

Mostly all this post has is some type checker bugs that have already been fixed (of course the article will never be updated now that they're fixed) and using -prod for measuring compiler speed, when it's explicitly mentioned on the website it's for non optimized builds only.

And nonsense like setting array length on creation is a terrible idea. Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well.

If he had a good faith, he'd report these issues via GitHub, and they'd get fixed within a week.

So, regarding your claim that I have "a habit of overpromising and even declaring things finished before even starting on them".

Please, list them here. 1.2.3.

Must be easy if there's a habit.

Re: V Language Review

#277

Post by Tozen »

klyrs wrote: post #274
Tozen wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that V developers and contributors are well within their rights to address criticisms of their work by detractors. Additionally, the OP has ran away from engaging in debate about various errors and opinions from their review, in an apparent attempt to leave an arguably underhanded one-sided negative impression (which includes suggesting not to use). So we have a situation where the OP created a hit piece with…

OP made a good faith effort hoping to find a sweet and working language, and the current implementation fell short of its long-advertised promises and accomplishments. That you're calling it a "hit piece" is telling. Y'all are well within your rights to waste your time arguing. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time.

Nowhere did the OP state he came upon V in good faith to be helpful or seeking improvements, but rather starts with the position of whether or not it is worth it (setting up a position to dissuade). Then blasts the language in his summary and opinion (and who is he?), with a non recommendation. Never consults with the V community or opens any bug reports. He uses a throwaway name and account, then runs away from any attempt to be engaged by the V developers over errors and opinions in his review. Looks like a hit piece to me.

Re: V Language Review

#278

Post by klyrs »

amedvednikov wrote: post #276
klyrs wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP made a good faith effort hoping to find a sweet and working language, and the current implementation fell short of its long-advertised promises and accomplishments. That you're calling it a "hit piece" is telling. Y'all are well within your rights to waste your time arguing. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time.

Mostly all this post has is some type checker bugs that have already been fixed (of course the article will never be updated now that they're fixed) and using -prod for measuring compiler speed, when it's explicitly mentioned on the website it's for non optimized builds only. And nonsense like setting array length on creation is a terrible idea. Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well. I…

If the bugs are fixed, put 'em in your CI and blog about it. Taking my own advice here, I've got better things to do than argue with you.

Re: V Language Review

#279

Post by amedvednikov »

klyrs wrote: post #278
amedvednikov wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly all this post has is some type checker bugs that have already been fixed (of course the article will never be updated now that they're fixed) and using -prod for measuring compiler speed, when it's explicitly mentioned on the website it's for non optimized builds only. And nonsense like setting array length on creation is a terrible idea. Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well. I…

If the bugs are fixed, put 'em in your CI and blog about it. Taking my own advice here, I've got better things to do than argue with you.

So you're going to slander me, make a very strong accusation, call V (the work of hundreds of contributors) a "vapor", and when asked for a single proof you just say "I don't have time for this"?

What a nice character you are.

Re: V Language Review

#280

Post by ylluminate »

vlang1dot0 wrote: post #271
amedvednikov wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not using tcc, because the language literally tells you so, you get a GCC error, and you get 10x slower compilation time. I think it's pretty clear. Anyway, now that we are clear on the compilation speed claim, can you please list a couple of those extraordinary claims?

Did you even bother to read what he pasted? Tcc is used in the first set of commands that do not terminate.

He is in fact reading it, please look again at what he pasted. It really seems somehow you're getting your wires crossed.
Post reply on HN