Comment by klyrs
3 years ago
OP made a good faith effort hoping to find a sweet and working language, and the current implementation fell short of its long-advertised promises and accomplishments. That you're calling it a "hit piece" is telling. Y'all are well within your rights to waste your time arguing. I'm just saying that it's a waste of time.
Mostly all this post has is some type checker bugs that have already been fixed (of course the article will never be updated now that they're fixed) and using -prod for measuring compiler speed, when it's explicitly mentioned on the website it's for non optimized builds only.
And nonsense like setting array length on creation is a terrible idea. Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well.
If he had a good faith, he'd report these issues via GitHub, and they'd get fixed within a week.
So, regarding your claim that I have "a habit of overpromising and even declaring things finished before even starting on them".
Please, list them here. 1.2.3.
Must be easy if there's a habit.
> Mostly all this post has is some type checker bugs that have already been fixed (of course the article will never be updated now that they're fixed)
Alex, all of these are still open right not and are not fixed:
- "No mut m := x mutability check" https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14803
- "closure capture names are not checked for uniqueness with the closure parameter names" https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14787
- "segfault in auto string method generated for []&int{len:1} (does not check for 0 pointers)" https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14786
> using -prod for measuring compiler speed
My article does not do that. I included all the steps used and the 1,000,000 line tests use tcc and not -prod.
> And nonsense like setting array length on creation is a terrible idea. Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well.
V allows the user to override length field which is used in bounds-checking with no validation. That's the problem.
Please stop lying and just be honest about the state of V.
Given the behavior of you, Tozen and ylluminate on this thread, I have zero interest in interacting with the V "community" again.
> V allows the user to override length field which is used in bounds-checking with no validation. That's the problem.
No it doesn't, it can only be set on init.
Please stop lying and just be honest about the state of V.
You never interacted with the community, never reported the bugs, never discussed these issues on Discord. Gotta create a new account and spread disinfo.
Seriously? Talk to me privately if you have any actual demonstrable problems with me. It's not like I don't know who you are, but I'm not directly calling you out here for your desire to remain anonymous.
If the bugs are fixed, put 'em in your CI and blog about it. Taking my own advice here, I've got better things to do than argue with you.
So you're going to slander me, make a very strong accusation, call V (the work of hundreds of contributors) a "vapor", and when asked for a single proof you just say "I don't have time for this"?
What a nice character you are.
2 replies →
Nowhere did the OP state he came upon V in good faith to be helpful or seeking improvements, but rather starts with the position of whether or not it is worth it (setting up a position to dissuade). Then blasts the language in his summary and opinion (and who is he?), with a non recommendation. Never consults with the V community or opens any bug reports. He uses a throwaway name and account, then runs away from any attempt to be engaged by the V developers over errors and opinions in his review. Looks like a hit piece to me.
Tozen, since no one has spelled it out for you: I am not obligated to sit at my keyboard refreshing the page constantly, waiting for your latest comment. I was here for 6 hours after posting and responded to many comments including multiple of yours where you continuously insinuated ill intent from me because I didn't give your pet programming language a recommendation.
The V project should feel free to pull any bug reports they want out of my blog post (I see they've already done so multiple times). From the votes on the comment section here, I can it's obvious to everyone how dysfunctional the V community is which explains a lot about the state of the project. I will not be interacting with you again.
You create a new account here to post your newly created "blog" with this attack on V 0.2 (a pre 1.0 language which you forget to mention) which is mostly based on some type checker bugs (that could've been reported in fixed within a week) and nonsense like "setting array length on creation is a terrible idea". (Go with its `make([]int, 5)` must be a terrible scam language as well.)
And you have the audacity to call the V community dysfunctional.