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

71–80 of 336 posts

Re: V Language Review

#71

Post by mawfig »

jacknews wrote: post #69
mawfig wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, not yet. New to blogging and this took quite a long time to complete to a level I was satisfied with so it will probably be a while before I complete another one.

Re: V Language Review

#72

Post by Tozen »

mawfig wrote: post #70
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.

"ML-derived languages like OCaml are "mostly pure". They allow side-effects through things like references and arrays, but by and large most of the code you'll write will be pure functional because they encourage this thinking. Haskell, another functional language, is pure functional. OCaml is therefore more practical because writing impure functions is sometimes useful."

https://ocaml.org/docs/functional-programming

> My complaint is that V claims to be pure...

"V is not a purely functional language however." (from V documentation)

https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#pure-func...

Re: V Language Review

#73

Post by e63f67dd-065b »

pwdisswordfish9 wrote: post #6

At this point, why do people even spend time on debunking the marketing claims of this language at all? It's been done to death, whoever was going to be convinced the V developer is a charlatan has already been convinced. For better or for worse.

There’s some value to people that don’t refresh the front page 10 times a day. I’ve only ever seen the language mentioned in passing and saw the shiny website, but not that it’s all utterly bs. Also as the author said apparently there’s been claims of improvement since the last debunking post, and it seems like it’s still vapourware.

I have no horse in the race, and having never seen the controversy, it does seem suspicious that the language author is making money off of claims that simply aren’t true. The amount of stars on GitHub compared to actual activity on comparable repos does indicate that the marketing is working though, the claims being made are taken at face value, not the WIPs that they actually are.

I too can dream of a perfect language, but it doesn’t mean I should put up a website claiming that I’ve actually made it and it’s real.

Re: V Language Review

#74

Post by mawfig »

Tozen wrote: post #72
mawfig wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"ML-derived languages like OCaml are "mostly pure". They allow side-effects through things like references and arrays, but by and large most of the code you'll write will be pure functional because they encourage this thinking. Haskell, another functional language, is pure functional. OCaml is therefore more practical because writing impure functions is sometimes useful." https://ocaml.org/docs/functional-programming…

"A pure function is one without any side-effects."

https://ocaml.org/docs/functional-programming

"V functions are pure by default, meaning that their return values are a function of their arguments only, and their evaluation has no side effects (besides I/O)."

https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#pure-func...

It sure sounds to me like V is trying to claim that functions can be pure while still performing I/O.

Re: V Language Review

#75

Post by Tozen »

jacknews wrote: post #69
mawfig wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: V Language Review

#76

Post by avgcorrection »

mountainriver wrote: post #68
avgcorrection wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A lot of people want to go to Heaven.

Re: V Language Review

#77

Post by theamk »

Tozen wrote: post #50
mawfig wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's interesting or telling, because if you read what I posted carefully, I was not insinuating anything about your evaluation. Instead, the point was being made that you probably don't want to be associated with an old evaluation from 3 years ago, which is falsely accusing V of being vaporware, and where the author and the developer of V clearly have beefs with each other.

What do you mean "falsely accusing"? Looks like Xe's blog was correct, V was vaporware back than.

According to this post, it still kinda is.. At least the most interesting parts like unique memory management is 100% vaporware.

Re: V Language Review

#78

Post by theamk »

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.

Because no other new languages lied that much?

Re: V Language Review

#79

Post by Tozen »

mawfig wrote: post #74
Tozen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ML-derived languages like OCaml are "mostly pure". They allow side-effects through things like references and arrays, but by and large most of the code you'll write will be pure functional because they encourage this thinking. Haskell, another functional language, is pure functional. OCaml is therefore more practical because writing impure functions is sometimes useful." https://ocaml.org/docs/functional-programming…

"A pure function is one without any side-effects." https://ocaml.org/docs/functional-programming "V functions are pure by default, meaning that their return values are a function of their arguments only, and their evaluation has no side effects (besides I/O)." https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#pure-func... It sure sounds to me like V is trying to claim that functions can be pure while still performin…

V's documentation is making it clear that it's not a purely functional language, so there should not be any such expectations. It also gives it's interpretation of what a pure function is, which other languages do as well, and there are various opinions about this.

You appear to be unbothered by OCaml describing itself as "mostly pure", whatever such "marketing" truly means, but seem to take strong offense to V. Seems like "mostly pure", in either case, should be equally acceptable or generate equal outrage.

Re: V Language Review

#80

Post by theamk »

Tozen wrote: post #56
haskellandchill wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your deal, is V your language or something?

Actually, there are a number of programming languages that I like. And I use other languages more than V, though I do think it does show a lot of promise and possibilities. But more than favoring any language, something I don't like is bullying, unfairness, or underhandedness. If I see something that appears odd or unfair, I can at times feel obliged to call it out.

Do you think it is unfair to point out the lies?
Post reply on HN