Comment by pwdisswordfish9
3 years ago
At this point, why do people even spend time on debunking the marketing claims of this language at all? It's been done to death, whoever was going to be convinced the V developer is a charlatan has already been convinced. For better or for worse.
For what it's worth, there has been some progress on the language and the author has responded to past criticism. I've been following developments of the language for a few years now, and I'd love it if all the claims came to fruition. Since it's a work in progress, past criticism doesn't necessarily apply -- leaving me to wonder "is it not bullshit yet?" Since the author has a habit of overpromising and even declaring things finished before even starting on them, and newcomers might not know what to think, his claims warrant regular scrutiny. It appears that V is still for vapor.
> Since the author has a habit of overpromising and even declaring things finished before even starting on them
Do you have any examples?
TFA has plenty. Don't let yourself get mired in fights on the orange site. Instead, spend the energy fixing bugs and you'll meet less criticism in the future.
20 replies →
I think everyone wants a "Rust but better" language to exist, and that very well might be V in 5 years, but Rust wasn't advertising features as 'completed' years before they were implemented/stable and neither should V. Continuing to point out the design issues will either get the marketing claims removed (just throw up a roadmap!) or articles like this will be used to show V's progress in a distant future.
I wouldn't bet a single dollar on V improving to any qualitative level. It's been a surprisingly large transpiling hack. Graydon Hoare had some PLT knowledge before going on doing Rust, it's not just feature names and potential impl.
What are the qualitative levels in your opinion?
The V compiler is self hosting for example, there are useful examples done in the main repo, people are using it for writing web servers.
What it should do, to "qualify", and to qualify in what?
1 reply →
> wants a "Rust but better" language to exist, and that very well might be V in 5 years . . .
How can anyone possibly believe this?? What is the motivation?? V is a `README` full of desires, and a source tree full of incompetence. There is no concrete or technical evidence that can support this optimism. Zig is a serious project. Go is a serious project. Rust is a serious project. V is, obviously, an un-serious project.
I assure you, that V is a very serious project, and its README is not full of desires, whatever that means.
As for the source tree full of incompetence - that may be so, if you can help, you are welcome to make PRs to improve it.
As incompetently written as it is, it is capable of compiling itself, and quickly, unlike some others.
1 reply →
Everyone wants that? Not even everyone wants something like Rust. But I doubt that everyone who programs in Rust (and like it somewhat) want Rust-but-better (when that entails learning a completely different language, at least).
A lot of people want it which is why V is so popular despite not really working well
1 reply →
There’s some value to people that don’t refresh the front page 10 times a day. I’ve only ever seen the language mentioned in passing and saw the shiny website, but not that it’s all utterly bs. Also as the author said apparently there’s been claims of improvement since the last debunking post, and it seems like it’s still vapourware.
I have no horse in the race, and having never seen the controversy, it does seem suspicious that the language author is making money off of claims that simply aren’t true. The amount of stars on GitHub compared to actual activity on comparable repos does indicate that the marketing is working though, the claims being made are taken at face value, not the WIPs that they actually are.
I too can dream of a perfect language, but it doesn’t mean I should put up a website claiming that I’ve actually made it and it’s real.
I'm personally holding out some hope that it'll eventually live up to its marketing claims - which means that I'm interested in seeing whether or not it has progressed in that direction in the last 3 years.
Have a look at the GitHub repo, it’s very active and there are clearly some passionate people putting a lot of work into it. So it’s worth looking at the language again every now and then.
Cryptocurrencies are also full of ‘passionate’ people. Doesn’t change that it’s all a bigger-fool scam.