3 ms·

> ...the first thing you see is vlang.io, which contains many false claims... Maybe vlang.io is first, depending on the search. Even so, likely a search will

by Tozen 5y ago

> ...the first thing you see is vlang.io, which contains many false claims... Maybe vlang.io is first, depending on the search. Even so, likely a search will also bring up V's GitHub page, usually right underneath it. There are no outright false claims or lies on the vlang.io main page, in my opinion. Debatably, there are some disputable or questionable claims, which mostly center around comparing V to other programming languages. This appears to be where the hostility towards V comes from, and where advocates of similar competing languages feel they are compared unfavorable, so are possibly out for "revenge" or upset. Those upset at various claims by the comparison of V to their favorite language, might be better served to study V in more detail. Simply saying they are "lying", without ever having used V or knowing anything about its development details, results in erroneous counter claims or comes off very odd to those who have used V. I made a point of providing links, so that those making such counter claims, could either download or examine information about V. Comparisons and competitiveness is inevitable, but clearly, there is nowhere for the outrageous opinion that V is vaporware, after 84 releases and weekly updates on GitHub (https://github.com/vlang/v/releases https://github.com/vlang/v/releases). > For V, on the comparaison page with Go: "- No GC", on the main page of V: "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.". Either no GC is false, or the frontpage gives false informations about memory management. In both case that's not inspiring confidence. It's quite telling that is the focus of saying V is "lying" or is "vaporware", which is not on the front page, but a link to comparing it with other languages (in this case Go). If a person bothered to take time to use V, or study the discussion and issues on it's GitHub, they would have likely realized that the intent of the V developers/contributors appears to be to use the autofree engine. The existing capability to use GC (-gc boehm) is both optional and experimental, because autofree isn't finished yet. GC is not a feature of V, as its considered too slow, and the experimental -gc boehm appears to be provided for temporary purposes. This can be assumed through reading of their discussions and issues by developers and contributors to users on their GitHub. On V's web page, they make it very clear that the autofree engine won't be ready until 0.3 (they are at 0.2.4). And they will allow for the disabling of autofree, -noautofree. It's not anything forced, but an option. This would appear to include any use of GC (as part of autofree) for additional clean up. So, the necessity of having to change statements on their web page is clearly a matter of opinion, but it's definitely not "lying" or looks like any intention to deceive. Furthermore, as they are in alpha, if they find that the experimental GC (-gc boehm) is working better than they expected then don't see anything wrong whatsoever with them deciding to keep it as another option. Which if they did, they would probably update their web page. That is the nature of alpha. You experiment, play with things, then make decisions based on the result. > ...language that's on github.com/vlang, exists and is very real. V, as in the language described on vlang.io, doesn't... First, those arguing against V (and perhaps some hiding their true reasons), usually don't make such a distinction. Usually its straight up claiming the V is vaporware, which clearly doesn't make any sense, with a quick look on GitHub. The new position that you appear to be presenting is that the language as described on vlang.io is "fake". I just don't see that. The "real" V language is clearly described by the documentation (https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md), which is linked to from vlang.io. Thus it doesn't look like any attempt at deception, as all can read their clear documentation (and download it). > ...But people here often talk about popularity. In that sense, V stands with Zig and Nim as "known by a few people but not much more", while Rust and Go now have a place in the industry. I can agree with you on that part. A very good argument can be made that V is closer to Zig and Nim, in terms of its present niche. But... Rust and Go were thrust upon us from major players like Google and Mozilla. It took both of these languages more than 10 years to achieve their present position. In regards to Rust, its much further down the list. Who is to say where V (coming out in 2019) could be in another 10 years? Another counter is that both Go and Rust appear to be purposely placed in more specific niches versus more generalized programming and application development. The goal of the V developers, so far, appears to be for as much widespread use as possible. > ...But there is still valid criticism from non-users, like what I'm offering here. You're free to take it or leave it. Fair point. Just like non-users have their right to express their opinion, users and those that like V, also have that same right too.

Zababa 5y ago
> There are no outright false claims or lies on the vlang.io main page, in my opinion. You've ignored my earlier point about pure functions that are allowed to have side effects. > A very good argument can be made that V is closer to Zig and Nim, in terms of its present niche. Zig maybe, Nim I doubt it. Nim is a managed langauge trying to appear as if it was not, like Swift. Now for the rest I don't see the point of arguing, as you spend half of your energy trying to frame my comments as some kind of attacks on V. They are not. My comments are raising points that, to some people, are obvious red flags. If you don't see those as red flags and think the current situation is fine, no problems. I'll go my way, you'll go yours, and that's it. Energy is better spent on what the actual users want, not what external people think. Now, if you want to actively fight the reputation of vaporware that V has, it might be a good idea to listen to my feedback and feedback like that. Remove/replace the claim about "pure functions by default", remove the coreutils or mark them as x% complete or wip, like the C translation. I'll stop replying here, as it's honestly exhausting to be constantly accused of something I'm not doing, especially when there is no way to prove you the opposite. Please keep the paranoia away next time.
- Tozen 5y ago
  > You've ignored my earlier point about pure functions that are allowed to have side effects. I was more hoping that you would read what they actually wrote. If one bothers to actually click the link on vlang.io which refers to "pure functions" it would go to (https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#pure-functions-by-default https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#pure-func...) their documentation where they elaborate on it further. There you will find, "V is not a purely functional language however". You are arguing (or condemning) from the perspective of what is a pure function, where there are various opinions about such. V's documentation gives their interpretation and explanation on what is a "pure function". Thus they are not lying, attempting to deceive, or hiding anything. Click the link, get their explanation about pure functions. Arguing about the "purity" of pure functions or the possibility of side effects happening, is somewhat similar to arguing about what is or is not "real" OOP. There are different interpretations of such. It can become a more philosophical debate than about practical programming. > ...to be constantly accused of something I'm not doing... Reading your other comments on this thread (in other locations), it does appear that you are a Go language supporter. Nothing wrong with that and you are definitely entitled to your opinion. Not saying you are doing anything malicious, but rather people are allowed to also have a different opinion to what you have stated, or like the V language as you appear to with Go.

by Tozen 5y ago

Zababa 5y ago

> There are no outright false claims or lies on the vlang.io main page, in my opinion. You've ignored my earlier point about pure functions that are allowed to have side effects. > A very good argument can be made that V is closer to Zig and Nim, in terms of its present niche. Zig maybe, Nim I doubt it. Nim is a managed langauge trying to appear as if it was not, like Swift. Now for the rest I don't see the point of arguing, as you spend half of your energy trying to frame my comments as some kind of attacks on V. They are not. My comments are raising points that, to some people, are obvious red flags. If you don't see those as red flags and think the current situation is fine, no problems. I'll go my way, you'll go yours, and that's it. Energy is better spent on what the actual users want, not what external people think. Now, if you want to actively fight the reputation of vaporware that V has, it might be a good idea to listen to my feedback and feedback like that. Remove/replace the claim about "pure functions by default", remove the coreutils or mark them as x% complete or wip, like the C translation. I'll stop replying here, as it's honestly exhausting to be constantly accused of something I'm not doing, especially when there is no way to prove you the opposite. Please keep the paranoia away next time.

Tozen 5y ago
> You've ignored my earlier point about pure functions that are allowed to have side effects. I was more hoping that you would read what they actually wrote. If one bothers to actually click the link on vlang.io which refers to "pure functions" it would go to (https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#pure-functions-by-default https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#pure-func...) their documentation where they elaborate on it further. There you will find, "V is not a purely functional language however". You are arguing (or condemning) from the perspective of what is a pure function, where there are various opinions about such. V's documentation gives their interpretation and explanation on what is a "pure function". Thus they are not lying, attempting to deceive, or hiding anything. Click the link, get their explanation about pure functions. Arguing about the "purity" of pure functions or the possibility of side effects happening, is somewhat similar to arguing about what is or is not "real" OOP. There are different interpretations of such. It can become a more philosophical debate than about practical programming. > ...to be constantly accused of something I'm not doing... Reading your other comments on this thread (in other locations), it does appear that you are a Go language supporter. Nothing wrong with that and you are definitely entitled to your opinion. Not saying you are doing anything malicious, but rather people are allowed to also have a different opinion to what you have stated, or like the V language as you appear to with Go.