7 ms·

I have some guesses. I'll publish a big blog post about this. It will debunk all these "V is a scam" articles. Basically V appeared out of nowhere and got pop

I have some guesses. I'll publish a big blog post about this. It will debunk all these "V is a scam" articles. Basically V appeared out of nowhere and got popular very fast. It took a lot of shortcuts: it was self hosted on release, GitHub started supporting it 1 month after the release, it had hot code reloading, fast compilation (v self is <1s [0]) and so on. People developing other languages and their communities didn't like it, and decided to attack it. There were 2 strategies: making completely false statements (like claiming that the V compiler has a dependency on glfw, so the no dependency claim is false, and claiming that V programs use libc, system's only official API, therefore again the no dependency claim is false) and nitpicking over bugs that are inevitable in a 0.1 language, and sometimes complaining that features explicitly marked as [wip] are not ready yet. One of the common questions I saw is "why release it if it's not ready". While that's the whole point of open source. I got lots of help from 500+ contributors and got to this point a lot faster. Then there was also a misunderstanding with the "preview" release one week before the source code was released, and many thought V was going to be closed source. Over this week unfinished features were not marked as [wip]. They were marked so after the open source release, and now there're no [wip] features on the website. Everything listed there is working in latest V. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvP6wmcl_Sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvP6wmcl_Sc

bheadmaster 4y ago
> People developing other languages and their communities didn't like it, and decided to attack it. I honestly doubt this is the case. Aside from some cargo-culters (which are far from being a majority), most programming language enthusiasts are very welcoming to new languages and ideas they bring with them. I have never seen a "language war" happening this way. Personally, I admire the V's ambitions (if the autofree() ever reaches production-quality it would be a total triumph over Golang's garbage collection approach), but I dislike the unprofessional approach to the community (explained in many other comments - particularly false claims about language capabilities, deleting criticisms, unwillingness to admit shortcomings and making up excuses for each of them, etc.).
- amedvednikov 4y ago
  There are 0 false claims about language capabilities on the website or in the docs. If you can link one, that'd be great, and it'll be fixed. I've spent a lot of time verifying all claims are valid. For example there was the "functions are pure by default except IO" which caused lots of criticism and memes. I simply changed the wording to a more verbose but correct phrase. So we do admit shortcomings and not make up excuses "for each of them" We do not delete criticisms, we actually welcome them and any kind of feedback: https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610 https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    So you're sticking with "people are evil and hate me"?
    - amedvednikov 4y ago
      So can you list the "false claims about language capabilities" here?
      - paskozdilar 4y ago
        You're reading my words, but you're not trying to understand what I'm saying. Unless you demonstrate an honest effort to understand, I will not continue this pointless argument.
        amedvednikov 4y ago
        You said there are false claims about language capabilities, I asked you to list them. It's a reasonable request. I don't want to have false claims on the website.
      - defen 4y ago
        Saying "no undefined behavior" when what you really mean is "We define our language's behavior to be the same as C's" (in other words, you just punt undefined behavior to the C compiler) is deceptive at best. I'm specifically thinking of signed integer overflow here, but that makes me think there may be other cases as well.

bheadmaster 4y ago

> People developing other languages and their communities didn't like it, and decided to attack it. I honestly doubt this is the case. Aside from some cargo-culters (which are far from being a majority), most programming language enthusiasts are very welcoming to new languages and ideas they bring with them. I have never seen a "language war" happening this way. Personally, I admire the V's ambitions (if the autofree() ever reaches production-quality it would be a total triumph over Golang's garbage collection approach), but I dislike the unprofessional approach to the community (explained in many other comments - particularly false claims about language capabilities, deleting criticisms, unwillingness to admit shortcomings and making up excuses for each of them, etc.).

amedvednikov 4y ago
There are 0 false claims about language capabilities on the website or in the docs. If you can link one, that'd be great, and it'll be fixed. I've spent a lot of time verifying all claims are valid. For example there was the "functions are pure by default except IO" which caused lots of criticism and memes. I simply changed the wording to a more verbose but correct phrase. So we do admit shortcomings and not make up excuses "for each of them" We do not delete criticisms, we actually welcome them and any kind of feedback: https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610 https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  So you're sticking with "people are evil and hate me"?
  - amedvednikov 4y ago
    So can you list the "false claims about language capabilities" here?
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      You're reading my words, but you're not trying to understand what I'm saying. Unless you demonstrate an honest effort to understand, I will not continue this pointless argument.
      - amedvednikov 4y ago
        You said there are false claims about language capabilities, I asked you to list them. It's a reasonable request. I don't want to have false claims on the website.
    - defen 4y ago
      Saying "no undefined behavior" when what you really mean is "We define our language's behavior to be the same as C's" (in other words, you just punt undefined behavior to the C compiler) is deceptive at best. I'm specifically thinking of signed integer overflow here, but that makes me think there may be other cases as well.