3 ms·

To be fair I didn't see a ton of "CS-defying" claims as in they were impossible, however he made a ton of claims that would put his language on par with languag

To be fair I didn't see a ton of "CS-defying" claims as in they were impossible, however he made a ton of claims that would put his language on par with languages with huge teams of people, several with major companies backing them, with far more resources. It was like, really? You're going to have all these features that teams of engineers have been working on for decades (in many cases)? And do them flawlessly? You're also going to beat Zig, Nim, and Go - in far less time? I've got no problem with projects like this for fun, but it's being marketed as a full fledge project.

c-cube 6y ago
There was at least the CS defying claim of "no GC, no leaks, simpler than rust" (I'm paraphrasing, but it was along these lines). Sounds easy when you just write it as a checkbox on a list of exciting features.
- delian66 6y ago
  There is no GC, and the language is indeed simpler than rust. The "only" thing missing for now is "no leaks", but we are working on it. You may be interested in https://aardappel.github.io/lobster/memory_management.html https://aardappel.github.io/lobster/memory_management.html .
  - vlang1dot0 6y ago
    > regarding lobster memory management: > the scope of anonymous functions cannot outlive variables' scope they reference, however V plans full closure support > lobster compiles whole codebase at once (so it can properly track data flow across module boundaries), however V plans incremental compilation support > both points are direct consequence of lobster's choice for memory management, ie solving them would mean moving away from lobster's strategy as far as I undersand https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/1247 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/1247 Lobster's approach at least has some theoretical rigorousness to it. What V is doing is quite different both in terms of the implementation and the requirements from the language itself and they have never been shown how their version is sound.

c-cube 6y ago

There was at least the CS defying claim of "no GC, no leaks, simpler than rust" (I'm paraphrasing, but it was along these lines). Sounds easy when you just write it as a checkbox on a list of exciting features.

delian66 6y ago
There is no GC, and the language is indeed simpler than rust. The "only" thing missing for now is "no leaks", but we are working on it. You may be interested in https://aardappel.github.io/lobster/memory_management.html https://aardappel.github.io/lobster/memory_management.html .
- vlang1dot0 6y ago
  > regarding lobster memory management: > the scope of anonymous functions cannot outlive variables' scope they reference, however V plans full closure support > lobster compiles whole codebase at once (so it can properly track data flow across module boundaries), however V plans incremental compilation support > both points are direct consequence of lobster's choice for memory management, ie solving them would mean moving away from lobster's strategy as far as I undersand https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/1247 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/1247 Lobster's approach at least has some theoretical rigorousness to it. What V is doing is quite different both in terms of the implementation and the requirements from the language itself and they have never been shown how their version is sound.