[unclad5968]

Mostly because the author completely scammed the shit out of people by promising a ton of things to garner patreon support before open sourcing what was essentially a hobby project at the time. I haven't followed it very closely, but last I heard about it was not delivering on the "autofree" feature.

I dont really care about the language. I've tried it a couple times and it's nothing special (to me) so I moved on, but I definitely understand where the hate comes from. The author essentially lied for at least months about his project to get financial support.

Quick edit: to actually add to the discussion, I think the weirdest thing about V is the odd support it does get. Most projects, especially compilers, with as much controversy as V would never get any support. I'm very curious what its proponents are using it for and why they choose V over pretty much any other language.

[amedvednikov]

you heard wrong, it's been delivering quite well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmB8ea8uLsM

no one has been scammed, whatever that means in opensource development

[tene]

Oh, that's really cool to hear! I'm glad that they've turned around.

So, where can I download the version of V with non-nullable references, no uninitialized memory, no mutation without call-site mutability annotations, that can compile 1M loc/sec, and a functional autofree?

[amedvednikov]

All the features you listed are there, maybe with bugs, which is expected for a 0.2/0.3 version, but they are there.

[tene]

If someone advertises their language as having no Null, no reading from uninitialized memory, and no mutation of immutable values, then I really do expect to be able to rely on those being completely absent. It is dishonest and shameful to say "No null" on the front page of the website when the developers are well aware of ways that their system fails to actually prevent null references.

If I'm buying a sandwich advertised as "no cockroaches", then I think it's appropriate to be pissed off about there being bugs in my sandwich, especially when it's clear that the sandwich shop knows all about the bugs in the sandwich and they just prefer to falsely claim their absence.

I would have no complaints if the developers would just describe these things as ambitious goals they haven't actually accomplished yet, instead of declaring that they've completed work they know they have not completed.

[amedvednikov]

No, you would look at the version of the language, realize it's 0.2 and not production ready yet.

[tene]

No, I really wouldn't, and don't. This is the kind of thing that reads to me as honest for a new in-development language: https://github.com/cruxlang/crux#status

Features are explicitly listed as working, partially done, and not yet implemented. You're really truly allowed to say "This doesn't work yet, but we're working on...", and it is legitimate to criticize people for choosing to lie instead.