7 ms·

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 take

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.

kizer 4y ago
It's been around for a few years now.
Tozen 4y ago
- ylluminate 4y ago
  100% right. It's sick. As a donor and supporter of this VALIANT AND VALID effort, I applaud the V community. It's full of sincere passion, love and is putting forth a great effort to realize something useful and needed in this sector.
  - super_flanker 4y ago
    So you think it's okay to lie and mislead people? You're going round the comments and telling everybody how wrong they are. Do you have any thing to say about concerns raised in the blog post? Or would you say that it's a lie and all the points raised are based on falsehood?
    - Tozen 4y ago
    - gompertz 4y ago
      Financial supporter of V here. I don't feel scammed or misled in the slightest; so speak for yourself with the imaginary money you did not donate.
      - super_flanker 4y ago
        I don't take responsibility of others. You don't feel scammed, good for you. May your investment come to fruition. I feel that this project is scam and as a good citizen it's my responsibility to make as many people aware about it as I can.
        gompertz 4y ago
        > I don't take responsibility > it's my responsibility Keep fighting whatever ghost you are fighting.
unclad5968 4y ago
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.
- amedvednikov 4y ago
  you heard wrong, it's been delivering quite well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmB8ea8uLsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmB8ea8uLsM no one has been scammed, whatever that means in opensource development
  - tene 4y ago
    Oh, that's really cool to hear! I'm glad that they've turned around. So, where can I download the version of V with non-nullable references, no uninitialized memory, no mutation without call-site mutability annotations, that can compile 1M loc/sec, and a functional autofree?
    - amedvednikov 4y ago
      All the features you listed are there, maybe with bugs, which is expected for a 0.2/0.3 version, but they are there.
      - tene 4y ago
        If someone advertises their language as having no Null, no reading from uninitialized memory, and no mutation of immutable values, then I really do expect to be able to rely on those being completely absent. It is dishonest and shameful to say "No null" on the front page of the website when the developers are well aware of ways that their system fails to actually prevent null references. If I'm buying a sandwich advertised as "no cockroaches", then I think it's appropriate to be pissed off about there being bugs in my sandwich, especially when it's clear that the sandwich shop knows all about the bugs in the sandwich and they just prefer to falsely claim their absence. I would have no complaints if the developers would just describe these things as ambitious goals they haven't actually accomplished yet, instead of declaring that they've completed work they know they have not completed.
theamk 4y ago
Because no other new languages lied that much?
forgotpwd16 4y ago
>Things change. Based on submitted link, they don't.
tene 4y ago
> Why are so many people frothing at the chance to disparage this language and it's author? It's because of all the lying. The author keeps claiming that their language has features that it definitely does not have. Why do so many people consider "I checked several notable claims, and most of them are false" to be some kind of hateful disparaging attack?
- amedvednikov 4y ago
  Can you list the false claims here? 1. 2. 3. Shouldn't be hard, if "most claims" are false according to you.
  - tene 4y ago
    I was referring to both the original post, and Xe's older post that this comment thread is about. They both list claims made by V and describe details how they tested those claims and what their results were. https://mawfig.github.io/2022/06/18/v-lang-in-2022.html https://mawfig.github.io/2022/06/18/v-lang-in-2022.html https://xeiaso.net/blog/v-vaporware-2019-06-23 https://xeiaso.net/blog/v-vaporware-2019-06-23
    - amedvednikov 4y ago
      Do you have anything more legit because these posts have nonsense like "setting array length on creation is a terrible idea" (Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well) and measuring the performance of a debug build, with slow backend, without vlib cached, and with vfmt on. You can see that V is actually as fast as is claimed on the website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvP6wmcl_Sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvP6wmcl_Sc Same with other points from the author that publicly claimed that "V has to die". Like I said, if "most claims are false" on vlang.io, as you claim, it shouldn't be hard to list 3 of them here.
      - tene 4y ago
        You've misunderstood my intent. In "I checked several notable claims, and most of them are false", I was trying to say that most of the notable claims that the author decided to check were false. This is very different from saying most of the statements on the website are false, which would be a completely absurd accusation, as you correctly point out. The summary section is literally a list of specific claims and the author's evaluation of these specific claims: https://mawfig.github.io/2022/06/18/v-lang-in-2022.html#summary https://mawfig.github.io/2022/06/18/v-lang-in-2022.html#summ... My comment was refuting that these posts are not "frothing at the chance to disparage this language and it's author". I stand by my refutation that these posts are appropriate, specific, relevant criticism, and that they cite specific evidence for their specific disagreements with the stated claims. You are certainly welcome to disagree with this author's claims! That sounds like appropriate, specific, relevant criticism of this author's claim. Would you say that you are "frothing at the chance to disparage this author"? I don't. I'll admit to some satire in my top comment on this subthread. By saying "It's because of all the lying", I was partly satirically reacting to what I saw as inappropriate hyperbole in "frothing at the mouth to disparage". I broadly agree that the V website is fine, just a little distasteful by my aesthetic. If you think it's fine for V documentation and advocacy to overstate their case and not mention significant gaps in what they claim the language has, I can't see how you'd call it inappropriate for other people who care about the production-suitability of a language to explicitly document what they believe to be major gaps in the production-readiness of a language claiming to have important safety features people want to rely on. For some context on my interpretation of these posts, I think about how many times over my career I've had to deal with software that claims to have "just a few bugs" on something important, but somehow the bugs never actually get fixed, and the fully general solution just never appears. These things really are genuinely difficult to design and build a fully general solution for. It takes time and engineering work, as we can see by these people finding a lot of holes as soon as they looked. As an engineer, I've had a lot of frustration from dealing with bugs and outages and maintenance issues that can be significantly improved by a good language. That's why I care so much about really wanting these things that V claims to have, and also why I care so much about the details of how exactly the claims currently fall short. It's so easy to overpromise, so I'm skeptical of any marketing for a new still-in-development tool that just claims to have solutions, with no big disclaimers about how they're still incomplete. Regarding your specific example, the problem that's being implied by the "setting array length on creation is a terrible idea" is that every time you're setting an array length in V, any mistake will not be caught by the compiler, and can be an exploitable memory safety violation. Memory safety vulnerabilities really truly have been and continue to be a serious ongoing source of serious computer security problems. V making various memory safety claims like no null and no reading from uninitialized memory, and then that being trivially broken on literally the most obvious possible violation, without even any safety marker to make sure it's obvious that this is a place where you can violate memory safety, means that it's just not a language I want to use. I agree that these posts are very passionate. I assert that these posts come from a passionate interest in what V aspires to be, and they hold V to a high standard, and find it believable that V can actually hit that high standard, and so they've checked it, and here are the places where you'll need to be extremely careful if you want to really rely on this in a high-reliability setting. It is not frothing at the mouth, and it is not disparagement; it is accurate and precise and specific and appropriate feedback, along with some emotional expression that I find relatable and appropriate.

kizer 4y ago

It's been around for a few years now.

Tozen 4y ago

ylluminate 4y ago
100% right. It's sick. As a donor and supporter of this VALIANT AND VALID effort, I applaud the V community. It's full of sincere passion, love and is putting forth a great effort to realize something useful and needed in this sector.
- super_flanker 4y ago
  So you think it's okay to lie and mislead people? You're going round the comments and telling everybody how wrong they are. Do you have any thing to say about concerns raised in the blog post? Or would you say that it's a lie and all the points raised are based on falsehood?
  - Tozen 4y ago
  - gompertz 4y ago
    Financial supporter of V here. I don't feel scammed or misled in the slightest; so speak for yourself with the imaginary money you did not donate.
    - super_flanker 4y ago
      I don't take responsibility of others. You don't feel scammed, good for you. May your investment come to fruition. I feel that this project is scam and as a good citizen it's my responsibility to make as many people aware about it as I can.
      - gompertz 4y ago
        > I don't take responsibility > it's my responsibility Keep fighting whatever ghost you are fighting.

unclad5968 4y ago

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.

amedvednikov 4y ago
you heard wrong, it's been delivering quite well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmB8ea8uLsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmB8ea8uLsM no one has been scammed, whatever that means in opensource development
- tene 4y ago
  Oh, that's really cool to hear! I'm glad that they've turned around. So, where can I download the version of V with non-nullable references, no uninitialized memory, no mutation without call-site mutability annotations, that can compile 1M loc/sec, and a functional autofree?
  - amedvednikov 4y ago
    All the features you listed are there, maybe with bugs, which is expected for a 0.2/0.3 version, but they are there.
    - tene 4y ago
      If someone advertises their language as having no Null, no reading from uninitialized memory, and no mutation of immutable values, then I really do expect to be able to rely on those being completely absent. It is dishonest and shameful to say "No null" on the front page of the website when the developers are well aware of ways that their system fails to actually prevent null references. If I'm buying a sandwich advertised as "no cockroaches", then I think it's appropriate to be pissed off about there being bugs in my sandwich, especially when it's clear that the sandwich shop knows all about the bugs in the sandwich and they just prefer to falsely claim their absence. I would have no complaints if the developers would just describe these things as ambitious goals they haven't actually accomplished yet, instead of declaring that they've completed work they know they have not completed.

theamk 4y ago

Because no other new languages lied that much?

forgotpwd16 4y ago

>Things change. Based on submitted link, they don't.

tene 4y ago

> Why are so many people frothing at the chance to disparage this language and it's author? It's because of all the lying. The author keeps claiming that their language has features that it definitely does not have. Why do so many people consider "I checked several notable claims, and most of them are false" to be some kind of hateful disparaging attack?

amedvednikov 4y ago
Can you list the false claims here? 1. 2. 3. Shouldn't be hard, if "most claims" are false according to you.
- tene 4y ago
  I was referring to both the original post, and Xe's older post that this comment thread is about. They both list claims made by V and describe details how they tested those claims and what their results were. https://mawfig.github.io/2022/06/18/v-lang-in-2022.html https://mawfig.github.io/2022/06/18/v-lang-in-2022.html https://xeiaso.net/blog/v-vaporware-2019-06-23 https://xeiaso.net/blog/v-vaporware-2019-06-23
  - amedvednikov 4y ago
    Do you have anything more legit because these posts have nonsense like "setting array length on creation is a terrible idea" (Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well) and measuring the performance of a debug build, with slow backend, without vlib cached, and with vfmt on. You can see that V is actually as fast as is claimed on the website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvP6wmcl_Sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvP6wmcl_Sc Same with other points from the author that publicly claimed that "V has to die". Like I said, if "most claims are false" on vlang.io, as you claim, it shouldn't be hard to list 3 of them here.
    - tene 4y ago
      You've misunderstood my intent. In "I checked several notable claims, and most of them are false", I was trying to say that most of the notable claims that the author decided to check were false. This is very different from saying most of the statements on the website are false, which would be a completely absurd accusation, as you correctly point out. The summary section is literally a list of specific claims and the author's evaluation of these specific claims: https://mawfig.github.io/2022/06/18/v-lang-in-2022.html#summary https://mawfig.github.io/2022/06/18/v-lang-in-2022.html#summ... My comment was refuting that these posts are not "frothing at the chance to disparage this language and it's author". I stand by my refutation that these posts are appropriate, specific, relevant criticism, and that they cite specific evidence for their specific disagreements with the stated claims. You are certainly welcome to disagree with this author's claims! That sounds like appropriate, specific, relevant criticism of this author's claim. Would you say that you are "frothing at the chance to disparage this author"? I don't. I'll admit to some satire in my top comment on this subthread. By saying "It's because of all the lying", I was partly satirically reacting to what I saw as inappropriate hyperbole in "frothing at the mouth to disparage". I broadly agree that the V website is fine, just a little distasteful by my aesthetic. If you think it's fine for V documentation and advocacy to overstate their case and not mention significant gaps in what they claim the language has, I can't see how you'd call it inappropriate for other people who care about the production-suitability of a language to explicitly document what they believe to be major gaps in the production-readiness of a language claiming to have important safety features people want to rely on. For some context on my interpretation of these posts, I think about how many times over my career I've had to deal with software that claims to have "just a few bugs" on something important, but somehow the bugs never actually get fixed, and the fully general solution just never appears. These things really are genuinely difficult to design and build a fully general solution for. It takes time and engineering work, as we can see by these people finding a lot of holes as soon as they looked. As an engineer, I've had a lot of frustration from dealing with bugs and outages and maintenance issues that can be significantly improved by a good language. That's why I care so much about really wanting these things that V claims to have, and also why I care so much about the details of how exactly the claims currently fall short. It's so easy to overpromise, so I'm skeptical of any marketing for a new still-in-development tool that just claims to have solutions, with no big disclaimers about how they're still incomplete. Regarding your specific example, the problem that's being implied by the "setting array length on creation is a terrible idea" is that every time you're setting an array length in V, any mistake will not be caught by the compiler, and can be an exploitable memory safety violation. Memory safety vulnerabilities really truly have been and continue to be a serious ongoing source of serious computer security problems. V making various memory safety claims like no null and no reading from uninitialized memory, and then that being trivially broken on literally the most obvious possible violation, without even any safety marker to make sure it's obvious that this is a place where you can violate memory safety, means that it's just not a language I want to use. I agree that these posts are very passionate. I assert that these posts come from a passionate interest in what V aspires to be, and they hold V to a high standard, and find it believable that V can actually hit that high standard, and so they've checked it, and here are the places where you'll need to be extremely careful if you want to really rely on this in a high-reliability setting. It is not frothing at the mouth, and it is not disparagement; it is accurate and precise and specific and appropriate feedback, along with some emotional expression that I find relatable and appropriate.