2 ms·
I think V [1] is what Go should’ve been. Simple, compiles fast, integrated language tooling, in fact quite similar to Go, but without all the dumb design decisi
by xigoi 2y ago
I think V [1] is what Go should’ve been. Simple, compiles fast, integrated language tooling, in fact quite similar to Go, but without all the dumb design decisions. Unlike Go, it has sum types, enums, immutable-by-default variables, option/result types, various other goodies and the syntax for for loops actually makes sense. It’s a shame that the compiler is quite buggy, but hopefully that’s going to improve.
[1] https://vlang.io/ https://vlang.io/
- norman784 2y agoI know V for over promising in the past, a quick scan over the syntax really looks like how Go should've designed (can't really blame Go early design decisions, for me was not until Rust that I learned about the good side of functional programming languages, before that I didn't knew they ever existed.
- baranul 2y agoBut Go was not trying to be functional, but more general-purpose ease of use. V (Vlang), moves a bit closer to functional, while keeping the ease of use of its Go heritage. Rust builds on top of its OCaml heritage, however, this creates a lot of confusion because of the verbosity and syntax differences from what people are used to with other C-like languages. Definitely, V (Vlang) is in the trajectory of a better Go or Go and C alternative. When you read V (Vlang), you can see how it's improving upon or advancing various Go concepts, while being C-like. Rust, because of the OCaml heritage, is a bit both odd and unique. It's positioned as a C/C++ replacement or alternative, but there is no easy recognition or transition from those languages. Possibly why there is a lot of friction and controversy surrounding Rust, as people haven't familiarized themselves with (or don't want to) with OCaml and that family of languages.