6 ms·

It became one of those hate memes. A target of irrational fervor among anyone caught in between. If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievanc

It became one of those hate memes. A target of irrational fervor among anyone caught in between. If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievances a mile long composed of misleading or highly interpretive wrongs. I haven’t had the pleasure to try out V yet but I hope this discussion can rise above. Endless bickering leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

richbell 3y ago
> If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievances a mile long composed of misleading or highly interpretive wrongs. What, in your opinion, are legitimate reasons for someone to be upset with V?
kbknapp 3y ago
> If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievances a mile long composed of misleading or highly interpretive wrongs. How can you assert that they're misleading or highly interpretive wrongs if you haven't dug into them yourself and actually used V? All the negative press I've seen on V has been highly detailed and reproducible.
- amedvednikov 3y ago
  [flagged]
- isaiahg 3y ago
  You don’t need to have touch it to see. Just browse this thread. A big one mentioned is over promising, which is pretty interpretive for a language only on version 0.4 of its development cycle. Most other complaints are slight variations of this. Promising magic performance or magic features without a good explanation, is another variation. This would be well and good for a fully released language, which this is not. All that tells me is the creator is overly ambitious for their own good and possibly naive, which I hardly classify as a sin. Whenever this topic comes up I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would waste so much energy mud slinging over some personal language project. It only makes sense if it’s become a hate meme. My pocket word for an event that’s a sort of social singularity. It occurs when enough popular voices have directed the entirety of a community to shame a target based on some perceived wrong, real or otherwise. Wherever it comes up I’m pretty taken aback by how tribal and ego focused we can be, even among the smartest of us. And that thought isn’t meant be taken as condescending. After all, we’re only human. And for a larger span of human history, that word has meant “hairless ape” more than anything else.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    > All that tells me is the creator is overly ambitious for their own good and possibly naive, which I hardly classify as a sin. Does the fact that he earns money off of Patreon by overpromising all the impossible features change your perspective on the matter?
bheadmaster 3y ago
> If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievances a mile long composed of misleading or highly interpretive wrongs. > I haven’t had the pleasure to try out V yet How can you know that the wrongs are misleading if you've never even tried the language?
dgellow 3y ago
They got lot of push back because what the core devs were describing Vlang to be was technically close to impossible, and their implementation was missing lot of properties they were advertising. If you would look at their sources or try out V when they released it you would have seen how outrageous their claims were.
- amedvednikov 3y ago
  There were no close to impossible/missing features.
  - richbell 3y ago
    You're saying that when Volt and V were first announced, there were no advertised features that were missing?
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    What about GC-less autofree? I'm still waiting for that CS breakthrough to happen - Rust guys will be so mad they spent their time writing lifetime annotations for the borrow checker :)
    - amedvednikov 3y ago
      You can look up vlang.io on web archive and see that it never said GC-less autofree. It actually explicitly said that RC/GC are used for stuff that can't be freed during compile time.
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        Here's a direct quote from the documentation [0] from 2021: > Most objects (~90-100%) are freed by V's autofree engine: the compiler inserts necessary free calls automatically during compilation. Remaining small percentage of objects is freed via reference counting. So most objects are freed by the autofree engine, and the rest are freed via reference counting. This implies that no objects are freed by the GC, which is exactly what I've said. Please stop gaslighting people. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20210315092012/https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md https://web.archive.org/web/20210315092012/https://github.co...
pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
> Endless bickering leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Fair enough. But then, you should know false advertising by the language maintainer leaves an even bitterer one.
- amedvednikov 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - richbell 3y ago
    > There's no false advertising anywhere on vlang.io or in the docs. Currently or ever?
    - amedvednikov 3y ago
      Currently. Previously there were features like C to V translation unmarked as WIP. WIP marks were quickly added, and gradually all features were implemented, and those marks were removed. Current contents of the website has been proof read by many people.
      - richbell 3y ago
        Fair enough.
  - zamberzand 3y ago
    The homepage still makes the claim that "[autofree] takes care of most objects (~90-100%): the compiler inserts necessary free calls automatically during compilation." There is no citation for where this 90-100% number comes from, it seems to be pulled completely out of thin air. Autofree, as it currently exists, cannot handle structs at all, so any program whose memory allocations consist of more than 10% structs unfortunately proves this claim false. For a specific example, a while ago I wrote a minimax tictactoe program[1] in V, which specifically used a struct to store the board state rather than an array. In this case, with the minimax running for 4 total moves, valgrind tells me: ==8518== HEAP SUMMARY: ==8518== in use at exit: 2,250,360 bytes in 68,544 blocks ==8518== total heap usage: 161,756 allocs, 93,212 frees, 4,762,235 bytes allocated So only 93212/161756 allocations were freed, which is 57%. ... Now, I don't actually care that much that autofree doesn't work on structs. I think that's quite reasonable, as it's a very difficult thing to implement! But, in my opinion, your website should really cite where this 90-100% number comes from, i.e. which benchmarks were used to generate it, so that it is clear that it isn't just completely made up. (As it currently stands, I would argue this is false advertising specifically because there's no citation for this number!) [1]: https://pastebin.com/6ZDKKRQR https://pastebin.com/6ZDKKRQR

richbell 3y ago

> If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievances a mile long composed of misleading or highly interpretive wrongs. What, in your opinion, are legitimate reasons for someone to be upset with V?

kbknapp 3y ago

> If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievances a mile long composed of misleading or highly interpretive wrongs. How can you assert that they're misleading or highly interpretive wrongs if you haven't dug into them yourself and actually used V? All the negative press I've seen on V has been highly detailed and reproducible.

amedvednikov 3y ago
[flagged]
isaiahg 3y ago
You don’t need to have touch it to see. Just browse this thread. A big one mentioned is over promising, which is pretty interpretive for a language only on version 0.4 of its development cycle. Most other complaints are slight variations of this. Promising magic performance or magic features without a good explanation, is another variation. This would be well and good for a fully released language, which this is not. All that tells me is the creator is overly ambitious for their own good and possibly naive, which I hardly classify as a sin. Whenever this topic comes up I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would waste so much energy mud slinging over some personal language project. It only makes sense if it’s become a hate meme. My pocket word for an event that’s a sort of social singularity. It occurs when enough popular voices have directed the entirety of a community to shame a target based on some perceived wrong, real or otherwise. Wherever it comes up I’m pretty taken aback by how tribal and ego focused we can be, even among the smartest of us. And that thought isn’t meant be taken as condescending. After all, we’re only human. And for a larger span of human history, that word has meant “hairless ape” more than anything else.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > All that tells me is the creator is overly ambitious for their own good and possibly naive, which I hardly classify as a sin. Does the fact that he earns money off of Patreon by overpromising all the impossible features change your perspective on the matter?

bheadmaster 3y ago

> If you ask those angered they pull out a list of petty grievances a mile long composed of misleading or highly interpretive wrongs. > I haven’t had the pleasure to try out V yet How can you know that the wrongs are misleading if you've never even tried the language?

dgellow 3y ago

They got lot of push back because what the core devs were describing Vlang to be was technically close to impossible, and their implementation was missing lot of properties they were advertising. If you would look at their sources or try out V when they released it you would have seen how outrageous their claims were.

amedvednikov 3y ago
There were no close to impossible/missing features.
- richbell 3y ago
  You're saying that when Volt and V were first announced, there were no advertised features that were missing?
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  What about GC-less autofree? I'm still waiting for that CS breakthrough to happen - Rust guys will be so mad they spent their time writing lifetime annotations for the borrow checker :)
  - amedvednikov 3y ago
    You can look up vlang.io on web archive and see that it never said GC-less autofree. It actually explicitly said that RC/GC are used for stuff that can't be freed during compile time.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      Here's a direct quote from the documentation [0] from 2021: > Most objects (~90-100%) are freed by V's autofree engine: the compiler inserts necessary free calls automatically during compilation. Remaining small percentage of objects is freed via reference counting. So most objects are freed by the autofree engine, and the rest are freed via reference counting. This implies that no objects are freed by the GC, which is exactly what I've said. Please stop gaslighting people. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20210315092012/https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md https://web.archive.org/web/20210315092012/https://github.co...

pwdisswordfishc 3y ago

> Endless bickering leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Fair enough. But then, you should know false advertising by the language maintainer leaves an even bitterer one.

amedvednikov 3y ago
[flagged]
- richbell 3y ago
  > There's no false advertising anywhere on vlang.io or in the docs. Currently or ever?
  - amedvednikov 3y ago
    Currently. Previously there were features like C to V translation unmarked as WIP. WIP marks were quickly added, and gradually all features were implemented, and those marks were removed. Current contents of the website has been proof read by many people.
    - richbell 3y ago
      Fair enough.
- zamberzand 3y ago
  The homepage still makes the claim that "[autofree] takes care of most objects (~90-100%): the compiler inserts necessary free calls automatically during compilation." There is no citation for where this 90-100% number comes from, it seems to be pulled completely out of thin air. Autofree, as it currently exists, cannot handle structs at all, so any program whose memory allocations consist of more than 10% structs unfortunately proves this claim false. For a specific example, a while ago I wrote a minimax tictactoe program[1] in V, which specifically used a struct to store the board state rather than an array. In this case, with the minimax running for 4 total moves, valgrind tells me: ==8518== HEAP SUMMARY: ==8518== in use at exit: 2,250,360 bytes in 68,544 blocks ==8518== total heap usage: 161,756 allocs, 93,212 frees, 4,762,235 bytes allocated So only 93212/161756 allocations were freed, which is 57%. ... Now, I don't actually care that much that autofree doesn't work on structs. I think that's quite reasonable, as it's a very difficult thing to implement! But, in my opinion, your website should really cite where this 90-100% number comes from, i.e. which benchmarks were used to generate it, so that it is clear that it isn't just completely made up. (As it currently stands, I would argue this is false advertising specifically because there's no citation for this number!) [1]: https://pastebin.com/6ZDKKRQR https://pastebin.com/6ZDKKRQR