[gus_massa]

> sets high goals

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.

[Rochus]

Problem? Is the communication not up to the author? And shouldn't people rather help out than just make demands on an open source project?

[agumonkey]

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".

[ylluminate]

Nice to see he's kept his word and following through as is the community. Really great and lovable group of folks. Sometimes there are cultural differentials, but everyone is really great and with a primary and essentially only rule of "be nice" - I think it's a breath of fresh air in this screwed up time.

[Rochus]

It's not uncommon and no bad practice at all to fully specify a language before it is fully implemented. There were a couple of languages where the compiler took even many years to come into existence after the language was published, or was never finished. Other people - like e.g. me - develop the language specification and compiler in parallel. Just different ways to look at it.

[agumonkey]

How is it related to spec'ing the language. It's just fuzzy use of terms to appear extraordinary. That's all. Btw he still didn't answer my simple question, meanwhile everybody is commenting saying how nice the community is, how people should help instead of criticizing and deflecting the actual issue people had with the project.

[Rochus]

> How is it related to spec'ing the language

You wrote a bit further up: "The problem is that in the initial releases the "high goals" were listed as "features" of the language". The "features" you mention are obviously the specification. Have e.g. a look at how long they specified Algol 68 and when finally a compiler appeared; CPL is yet another good example; actually at that time Wirth was one of the few who delivered a compiler simultaneously with the language specification.

[agumonkey]

I'd like to see the ALGOL group writing "we're faster and leaner than fortran" while writing their spec and no compiler to run tests against. I struggle to follow.

[gus_massa]

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.

[Rochus]

Apparently you don't ignore it.

[amedvednikov]

All claims on the website are valid with latest V.

[vlang1dot0]

Really?

- No null

Then what is `voidptr(0)`?

- No global variables

https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#global-va...

At least add "by default" to the web site.

- No undefined values

Which is done by initializing all values to 0. Probably not a good idea to do that for references though. (See also "no null values")

- No undefined behavior

`*voidptr(0)` is accepted by the compiler. Unsigned integer overflow is accepted by the compiler and UB in the generated C. How can V generate C code free of UB when it can't even generate C code that compiles all the time?

- Pure functions by default

Excluding I/O, one of the biggest sources of impurity, from your definition of pure is useless.

- Generics

You don't actually have generics, you have templates. Kind of ironic since Go has actually added generics before V has managed to get a 0.3 release out. The distinction is this: with generics the compiler is able to validate that the generic code type checks prior to substitution/monomorphization. With templated code, it's not possible to perform type checking until the concrete types have been instantiated. V implements templates with all the drawbacks including code bloat and inflated compile times that comes with it.

[Tozen]

Besides the obvious trolling, much of this is your interpretation and what you want the developers of Vlang to say instead. Let's keep in mind that others can have different interpretations, opinions, or things they like to nitpick about too. The developers of Vlang aren't obligated to you or me in any way, so are entitled to type their perspectives on their website.

The real deal are the many users, supporters, and contributors of Vlang. Where on GitHub (which is easy to check), it has more than many other newer languages (in various cases, more support than a couple of newer languages combined). Those people are the ones that count, who are using and improving the language daily.

"You can't put the genie back in the bottle", Vlang is firmly on the road to success and more popularity, despite its detractors and angry competitors.

[vlang1dot0]

So no actual response to objective criticism just "my interpretation is things are going well so they can claim anything they want"? Wow, what a compelling argument you make!

If you want to look at GitHub, sure let's do that. I see perhaps 5 regularly active contributors, many more who seem to have left the community, and a downward slope of commit activity starting in April 2020. Hardly some vast hub of activity like your comment would suggest.

Given autofree has been practically untouched in 6 months with no major bug fixes to speak of, reality would seem to be that V is on the slow road to nowhere. At the current rate of progress, I doubt we'll see 0.3 before mid 2023 and 1.0 perhaps sometime in the 2030s. It's been 6 months since anything was completed on the 0.3 checklist: https://github.com/vlang/v/commits/master/ROADMAP.md