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

41–50 of 193 posts

Re: Hello V-Lang

#41

Post by paskozdilar »

amedvednikov wrote: post #38
paskozdilar wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not really, here's a benchmark of V compiling itself in 0.3 seconds that includes all steps (including the C -> binary part) and results in the compiler binary From what I've seen, you've used tcc for the benchmark, right? If so, that's kinda cheating, since tcc is written to be a simple as possible (and therefore as fast as possible), so the compilation time is essentially zero. Benchmarking with gcc with optimiza…

V is also written to be as simple as possible :) Compilation time is very important during development for the quick dev cycle (change, build, test). You don't need to do -O2 builds dozens of times per day. -prod (-O2) builds are definitely an order of magnitude slower, that's a fact.

It's a dishonest benchmark. You're basically saying that "V compiles fast if you use a fast C compiler after the transpilation step", and wrapping it up as "V compiles fast". Those two are not exactly the same.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#42

Post by [deleted] »

kgeist wrote: post #24

Last time I checked V-Lang looked amazing on paper but on closer evaluation many of the claimed features were only planned, crashed the compiler on trivial inputs, or simply were half-baked and didn't deliver on the promises (things like syntax errors from the underlying C backend, memory leaks etc. because transpilation was straightforward and lacked proper checks, hence the fast compilation speed). A few months ago…

[deleted]

Re: Hello V-Lang

#43

Post by Rochus »

agumonkey wrote: post #30
Rochus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed very astonishing why many people here have such a negative attitude towards this language.

Because author kinda twisted terms to make it seems he achieved the impossible. Felt like he did better than rust+ada+haskell, all without using memory and faster than an eyeblink.

Maybe the author just likes to implement programming languages and sets high goals. All those who have experience with this know that it is a lot of work. Apparently, the author has been working on this for many years and has achieved a lot. I recently bought the Packt book; what is not clear to me at the moment is what are the specific innovations over the other already established languages. Thus, it would be helpful if on the main page of the language there was an essay on why the author thinks there is a need for a new language, and what the specific advantages are with respect to concrete features of the other languages.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#44

Post by amedvednikov »

lawl wrote: post #33
amedvednikov wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

autofree demo: V's compile time memory management demo. Running the Ved editor on an 8 MB file with 0 leaks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmB8ea8uLsM

Yes, we know, this is always your reply. We also know that boehm-gc is just temporary until you fixed the issues with autofree. Do let me know when that happens.

Well you said it doesn't work, which is not true. You also claimed this about half of the features on the list, which is also not true.

Regarding autofree/gc, here's a good summary from another comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31060052

Re: Hello V-Lang

#45

Post by amedvednikov »

paskozdilar wrote: post #41
amedvednikov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

V is also written to be as simple as possible :) Compilation time is very important during development for the quick dev cycle (change, build, test). You don't need to do -O2 builds dozens of times per day. -prod (-O2) builds are definitely an order of magnitude slower, that's a fact.

It's a dishonest benchmark. You're basically saying that "V compiles fast if you use a fast C compiler after the transpilation step", and wrapping it up as "V compiles fast". Those two are not exactly the same.

It's absolutely not a dishonest benchmark. This backend comes bundled with V, it's what it uses by default. That's how you get the end result binaries when you use V.

To the end user it doesn't matter how the binary was generated. Via LLVM or via a bundled C compiler.

The only thing that matters: getting that binary after compilation and getting it fast.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#46

Post by amedvednikov »

Rochus wrote: post #43
agumonkey wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because author kinda twisted terms to make it seems he achieved the impossible. Felt like he did better than rust+ada+haskell, all without using memory and faster than an eyeblink.

Maybe the author just likes to implement programming languages and sets high goals. All those who have experience with this know that it is a lot of work. Apparently, the author has been working on this for many years and has achieved a lot. I recently bought the Packt book; what is not clear to me at the moment is what are the specific innovations over the other already established languages. Thus, it would be helpf…

> what is not clear to me at the moment is what are the specific innovations over the other already established languages.

I'll make it more clear on the website.

There's already a comparison to Go, the language V is most similar to:

https://vlang.io/compare#go

Quite a lot of improvements.

V is basically about having the performance of C, the ease of use of Python, the simplicity of Go.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#47

Post by christophilus »

tony-allan wrote: post #10

An interesting language that’s worth a look https://vlang.io/ https://github.com/vlang/awesome-v

I took it for a spin recently and enjoyed the experience. The Postgres driver was woefully slow, compared to Golang (50 queries per second for a trivial query vs over 10k), which is the only reason my side project isn’t in V.

It’s a great language, though. Looking forward to using it in the future.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#48

Post by [deleted] »

amedvednikov wrote: post #45
paskozdilar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a dishonest benchmark. You're basically saying that "V compiles fast if you use a fast C compiler after the transpilation step", and wrapping it up as "V compiles fast". Those two are not exactly the same.

It's absolutely not a dishonest benchmark. This backend comes bundled with V, it's what it uses by default. That's how you get the end result binaries when you use V. To the end user it doesn't matter how the binary was generated. Via LLVM or via a bundled C compiler. The only thing that matters: getting that binary after compilation and getting it fast.

[deleted]

Re: Hello V-Lang

#49

Post by kgeist »

amedvednikov wrote: post #32
kgeist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, I may be wrong. I think I will try V some day to see it for myself (maybe I'll write an article about my findings). As you are the author of the language, can you comment on what is the state of the auto-free system? How is memory management implemented?

I don't think it's correct making claims like "it's a toy language" and "crashes on trivial input" without actually trying it out. You don't need an article to clone the repo, build the language in Autofree works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmB8ea8uLsM But it's not finished yet. We saw a better performance with a GC (due to all the extra copying autofree has to do), and made it the default. I've always been anti…

>But it's not finished yet. We saw a better performance with a GC (due to all the extra copying autofree has to do), and made it the default

On vlang.io I can find this:

>Most objects (~90-100%) are freed by V's autofree engine: the compiler inserts necessary free calls automatically during compilation. Remaining small percentage of objects is freed via GC.

So it's been 2 years and it's still unfinished, and you just use Boehm GC instead (from what I understood). Isn't your landing page a little misleading? This is the problem with V: a lot of grandiose claims but at the end of the day you use a GC used in every other toy language.

Re: Hello V-Lang

#50

Post by amedvednikov »

kgeist wrote: post #49
amedvednikov wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's correct making claims like "it's a toy language" and "crashes on trivial input" without actually trying it out. You don't need an article to clone the repo, build the language in Autofree works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmB8ea8uLsM But it's not finished yet. We saw a better performance with a GC (due to all the extra copying autofree has to do), and made it the default. I've always been anti…

>But it's not finished yet. We saw a better performance with a GC (due to all the extra copying autofree has to do), and made it the default On vlang.io I can find this: >Most objects (~90-100%) are freed by V's autofree engine: the compiler inserts necessary free calls automatically during compilation. Remaining small percentage of objects is freed via GC. So it's been 2 years and it's still unfinished, and you just…

But it says right there:

Note: right now autofree is hidden behind the -autofree flag. It will be enabled by default in V 0.3.

Using gc means it's a toy language? Got you.

Post reply on HN