You might want to look into the somewhat dodgy history of the language. The negativity is not surprising.
Though you may just be asking rhetorically to probe for a response from the founder, in which case, never mind.
Though you may just be asking rhetorically to probe for a response from the founder, in which case, never mind.
No, I was genuinely asking the question directly at the creator of the project, to understand their view of the contention they seem to be at the receiving end of.
I know the history of the project, but it seems to me like most languages in their pre 1.0 make claims about what they would like the language to be, not what it currently is, but they still don't receive their criticism in such manner. Or maybe I'm just reading into it too much. Hence the question :)
That's because those languages make those claims in future-tense rather than past tense; they explicitly state them as goals, rather than presenting them as if they're already implemented. For example, I wrote a tiny scripting language for Erlang/OTP apps called OTPCL, and I make it clear in the README which features are actually implemented (like the parser and interpreter) v. which ones are in progress (like the standard library) v. which ones haven't been started at all yet (like the compiler). Same deal with up-and-coming languages closer to V's use case, like Zig; there's a clear distinction between those three levels of completeness.
V did not make that distinction originally; a large number of its radically ambitious goals were presented on the website as if they were already implemented, only to later be revealed to be "WIP" at best. A lot of people - including, at one point, Zig's creator - assumed malice here, figuring the disparity between the website v. the actual releases to be an attempt to swindle Patreon backers (I can't read the mind of V's author, but I would guess that it was more of a language/communication thing than anything outright malicious). In any case, that left a pretty negative first impression for a lot of folks, myself included - and while it seems V is making some progress, it's hard to get that bad taste out of my mouth and consider even trying it out when languages like Zig and Odin and Nim and Crystal seem to be a lot more transparent and realistic from the outset.
This is a mostly content-free reply that casts vague aspersions; it's not especially helpful when someone asks, essentially, hey, what's going on here? to then respond that they may be interested in looking into what's going on. Of course they're interested—that's where the question comes from, after all. Please respond meaningfully, then, and abstain from replying with non-specific ad hominem.
But it started out with huge promises that could never be kept, and were tied to fund raising. This is why there was so much skepticism in the beginning, and why you are facing so much hostility now.
The way to change that is by professionalism and convincing arguments, benchmarks, showing how the promises are kept and responding to criticism in a good faith manner by providing technical explanations.
Not by responding with more hostility.
It's also perfectly fine for fans of the language to support it here, but there are many "content-free" posts in this submission that just hype up V with minimal value-add...
I personally don't see an ad-hominem in my post.
1. 2. 3.
> This is why[...] you are facing so much hostility now.
You are confused about something. You seem to think I'm someone else.