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

61–70 of 336 posts

Re: V Language Review

#61

Post by avgcorrection »

Tozen wrote: post #60
ricardobeat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe it has to do with "never actually used it" after empty platitudes. The article goes to great lengths to show what works as promised or not, you'd expect at least some mention of what the interesting design features are.

He doesn't have to be a user of the language to see that people are dunking on it. Some of the similarities of Vlang and Odin to Golang would be obvious from looking at the syntax and documentation by Go users. Though I do agree, it would have been better if he had played with it a bit.

Observation: People are dunking on this lang [because it doesn’t act the way it says it ought to].

Counter: The Platonic Ideal of this language is interesting. I like Go.

Yeah I wonder why people would downvote such a high-effort comment.

Re: V Language Review

#62

Post by pid-1 »

Tozen wrote: post #36
smcl wrote: post #3

Christine Dodrill's early assessment of the language might be of interest here: https://xeiaso.net/blog/v-vaporware-2019-06-23 She doesn't pull any punches, but I think she was quite prescient in capturing the vibe of the project.

Why in the world do competitors of this programming language insist on dragging out evaluations from 3 years ago, which state that V is vaporware and before the language was even released? This is 2022, not 2019, and we are talking a hundred releases later ( https://github.com/vlang/v/releases ). At least stick to the current evaluation (or attack), which is more relevant, and make points from there. But, keep in min…

Yeah you can't buy trust. Once it's done is done.

I'm not touching a language developed by folks who don't see a problem in scamming users, sorry.

Re: V Language Review

#63

Post by jitl »

Tozen wrote: post #41
jitl wrote: post #12

My recommendation is that if you like the look of V, you should consider Zig or Odin as well. Personally, Zig seems like the most promising C-but-modern language due to the interesting compile-time programming features and impressive investment in toolchain infrastructure.

Zig is arguably not something similar enough that it would be attractive. Odin and Vlang are kind of offshoots of Golang, so would be more similar and attractive to those users. If a person is a Golang user, they would be more likely to see the advantages and possible improvements of Odin and Vlang.

“Those users” are a mystery to me. Who are they? Instead of talking about hypothetical persons, I am sharing my perspective and recommendation, as someone who learned C before learning Go, and who programs Go from time to time. To me, Go feels like C set to “Very Easy Mode”. Memory: specify layout but don’t worry about freeing it! I see Zig as C set to “Easy Mode”. More control than Go, can do all the C things as good as C, but memory management is explicit (like in C, but less tricky to get right).

Re: V Language Review

#64

Post by slimygrapes »

The criticism re: purity is silly. It can still be useful to design a language that is “mostly pure” because you’re mostly not trying to fuck your self over. For example OCaml is “mostly pure” and it’s tremendously beneficial in terms of writing correct software, regardless of the IO escape hatch or the ‘a ref explicit mutability etc.

(I don’t care for V one way or the other though, and most of the results in the post are clearly bad, I just find this particular point to be absurd).

Re: V Language Review

#65

Post by Tozen »

sergiotapia wrote: post #48
smcl wrote: post #3

Christine Dodrill's early assessment of the language might be of interest here: https://xeiaso.net/blog/v-vaporware-2019-06-23 She doesn't pull any punches, but I think she was quite prescient in capturing the vibe of the project.

Nah that article is old as hell - time for new information. Things change. I also despise how many people want to shit on this new language before it even takes off. Why are so many people frothing at the chance to disparage this language and it's author? Never seen something like this.

No post body was provided.

Re: V Language Review

#66

Post by unclad5968 »

sergiotapia wrote: post #48
smcl wrote: post #3

Christine Dodrill's early assessment of the language might be of interest here: https://xeiaso.net/blog/v-vaporware-2019-06-23 She doesn't pull any punches, but I think she was quite prescient in capturing the vibe of the project.

Nah that article is old as hell - time for new information. Things change. I also despise how many people want to shit on this new language before it even takes off. Why are so many people frothing at the chance to disparage this language and it's author? Never seen something like this.

Mostly because the author completely scammed the shit out of people by promising a ton of things to garner patreon support before open sourcing what was essentially a hobby project at the time. I haven't followed it very closely, but last I heard about it was not delivering on the "autofree" feature.

I dont really care about the language. I've tried it a couple times and it's nothing special (to me) so I moved on, but I definitely understand where the hate comes from. The author essentially lied for at least months about his project to get financial support.

Quick edit: to actually add to the discussion, I think the weirdest thing about V is the odd support it does get. Most projects, especially compilers, with as much controversy as V would never get any support. I'm very curious what its proponents are using it for and why they choose V over pretty much any other language.

Re: V Language Review

#67

Post by mountainriver »

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #9

People like to dunk on V because of its author and community, but I will say that the design of the language itself (leaving aside the implementation) is genuinely interesting. To me, it feels like what Go should have been. And I like Go. So obviously I have a bit of a soft spot for V. Disclaimer: I’ve never actually used it.

I agree, the interface has always been great which is what attracts people. The core developer is just overselling and it’s coming back on him

Re: V Language Review

#68

Post by mountainriver »

avgcorrection wrote: post #22
judge2020 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone wants a "Rust but better" language to exist, and that very well might be V in 5 years, but Rust wasn't advertising features as 'completed' years before they were implemented/stable and neither should V. Continuing to point out the design issues will either get the marketing claims removed (just throw up a roadmap!) or articles like this will be used to show V's progress in a distant future.

Everyone wants that? Not even everyone wants something like Rust. But I doubt that everyone who programs in Rust (and like it somewhat) want Rust-but-better (when that entails learning a completely different language, at least).

A lot of people want it which is why V is so popular despite not really working well

Re: V Language Review

#69

Post by jacknews »

mawfig wrote: post #42
Tozen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Every evaluation in my blog is fully reproducible from the version of V I linked to and I've included all the source code used as well. My post stands on it's own. Instead of insinuating I'm some kind of competitor or have a personal agenda, I would encourage you to respond to the actual points raised in my post.

Are there any other language evaluations in your blog, or a plan for any, etc? I'd like to read other reviews, but I only see this one post.

Re: V Language Review

#70

Post by mawfig »

slimygrapes wrote: post #64

The criticism re: purity is silly. It can still be useful to design a language that is “mostly pure” because you’re mostly not trying to fuck your self over. For example OCaml is “mostly pure” and it’s tremendously beneficial in terms of writing correct software, regardless of the IO escape hatch or the ‘a ref explicit mutability etc. (I don’t care for V one way or the other though, and most of the results in the pos…

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with impure programming languages. I use them every single day. My complaint is that V claims to be pure and is actually impure. To my knowledge, OCaml makes no claim to functional purity.
Post reply on HN