[amedvednikov]

> what is not clear to me at the moment is what are the specific innovations over the other already established languages.

I'll make it more clear on the website.

There's already a comparison to Go, the language V is most similar to:

https://vlang.io/compare#go

Quite a lot of improvements.

V is basically about having the performance of C, the ease of use of Python, the simplicity of Go.

[Rochus]

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?

[amedvednikov]

I created V because Go didn't work nicely with C for my project.

So just that would be enough for me to use V.

Variable shadowing makes code more bug prone and confusing.

As for the size: V uses system's official API (libc), including networking. Go has their own libs that have to be statically linked in to the binary.