81–90 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An article like the V one on Zig checking the claims would be awesome, wouldnt it.?
Quoted post unavailable.
I don't think that's the case. I believe most people just don't like seeing others spreading lies and like when they are refuted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for linking Xe's blog here! It's a few years old and I've seen a lot of comments on HN that suggest V has improved significantly since 2019 so I thought it might be worth looking into for myself and writing down a review of what I found.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An article like the V one on Zig checking the claims would be awesome, wouldnt it.?
Quoted post unavailable.
Based on your posts in this thread, you seem to have a very paranoid outlook, where everyone is out to get V for no rational reason at all, and implying they have sinister motives. But: anyone can just run the code examples in the article and see for themselves that V is just not living up to its promises. It's just more confirmation that the V people are a little cult that can't take any criticism at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for linking Xe's blog here! It's a few years old and I've seen a lot of comments on HN that suggest V has improved significantly since 2019 so I thought it might be worth looking into for myself and writing down a review of what I found.
Quoted post unavailable.
As someone who works full time on one relatively young language, has created a couple more, and knows people working on many others, this is 100% wrong in my personal experience.
Most young language teams work very hard to communicate accurately and to set appropriate expectations because they know that user trust is a hard requirement for adoption.
V is the outlier here.
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…
One reason that people highlight older criticism is because it's useful to examine past behavior, past promises, and contrast them to current behavior and current promises. If V is going to improve its reputation, it's going to do it by (a) making good on the promises it can, (b) coming clean on the promises it can't, and (c) offer a clear win for some distinguishing featureset. Badgering people to shut up about the past isn't on that list.
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…
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.
Which really is the issue here: v makes a big talk but doesn't do what it says on the tin, while other languages, generally speaking, do. There's a difference between goals and features, and Zig distinguishes those well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Quoted post unavailable.