Because author kinda twisted terms to make it seems he achieved the impossible. Felt like he did better than rust+ada+haskell, all without using memory and faster than an eyeblink.
Maybe the author just likes to implement programming languages and sets high goals. All those who have experience with this know that it is a lot of work. Apparently, the author has been working on this for many years and has achieved a lot. I recently bought the Packt book; what is not clear to me at the moment is what are the specific innovations over the other already established languages. Thus, it would be helpful if on the main page of the language there was an essay on why the author thinks there is a need for a new language, and what the specific advantages are with respect to concrete features of the other languages.
The problem is that in the initial releases the "high goals" were listed as "features" of the language, not as planed improvements of the initial implementation. So even now when I read a list like in the article, I'm not sure which are already implemented and which are just wishes, but after the initial bad impression I'm not bother to check.
That is absurd. He's not saying "I have an idea, and with a bit of help we might reach extraordinary numbers", he claims "better faster leaner than everybody else".
I don't have time to help every single open source project that makes bold claims. I also don't demand anything, I just moved V to my ignored list. It may be unfair, and I may take a look in a few years again if there are enough solid news about V floating around.
Thanks for the link; that's going in the direction I was looking for. So could one say that V is essentially the Go the author would have wanted, and the new language is justified by the "~20%" difference, and an independent development is necessary due to the slow pace at which Go is evolving? So that would be a similar motivation as Nim versus Python, or Oberon+ versus Oberon.
The feature differences in list form are helpful; but the priorities and motivation for individual features would also be interesting; e.g. why is "variable shadowing" bad and why is the V approach better, and how can smaller runtime and binaries smaller by a factor of 100 be achieved with a feature set that is at least 80% the same as Go? Does this really have to do with the language definition, or rather with the implementation?
Can you elaborate? There was never a claim it doesn't use memory (although it does use a lot less memory than most compilers). The language is indeed fast, V compiles itself in 0.3 seconds:
There is a lot of competition among the newer programming languages. A lot of criticism and trolling is to disguise their invested interest and advocacy for their preferred language. That Vlang rose up so quickly and has done so well for itself in comparison to their language, is a cause of resentment and anger for some.
I took it for a spin recently and enjoyed the experience. The Postgres driver was woefully slow, compared to Golang (50 queries per second for a trivial query vs over 10k), which is the only reason my side project isn’t in V.
It’s a great language, though. Looking forward to using it in the future.
Thank you. The db drivers do need some love and are going to get it soon, but it's been a relatively lower priority considering other areas of focus by community members.