Tozen
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
1,919
Submissions
1,031
Member since
Sep 16
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
In the link you posted (id=36816398), never saw it until this, as the entire series of posts were deleted away from the main thread. So was not aware of the situation, and that it was being blamed on me specifically.
If you review those chain of posts, surely the account that first named V directly (not to even go into the list of many other antagonists), initiated and provoked by specifically targeting the V language. Including posting provocative or inflammatory links (which are spammed on most V threads).
I'm concerned that the definition of what constitutes instigating or being found at fault for starting a flamewar, appears directed at those who may respond with or show any support for V.
Those that are clearly instigating, continually snarky, or even directly insulting in their posts seem to go unpunished or ignored. Though, as a user, don't have the greater perspective on this.
Apologies on the rule violation, as often attempt to avoid crossing the line, and was just attempting to provide at least a contrasting point of view to what is continually taking place on the subject. After review, do see which rule was violated, which was not the original intent.
If you would be kind of enough to, can you instruct on how you view this situation?
Comment · 3 years ago
V has the right to exist, have its supporters, and do things its own way. The creator and developers of V, from what I have seen, have responded well to actual constructive criticism. Their language has discussions opened at their GitHub, unlike those for various other languages. They even have a thread for what people don't like and want improved about the language[1], again, something many other languages don't have.
A lot of what was going on initially, was coming from obvious competitors and evangelists, to include being uncivil, inflammatory, and directly insulting. The initial "criticism" was not so much that, but false accusations of the language being a scam, vaporware, fraud, or didn't really exist. To include attacks and jealousy over donations, rising popularity, and having supporters. This was not any kind of "valid" criticism, that the creator or contributors of the language could reason about with instigators.
The "criticism" never died down, but rather V was open-sourced and established itself on GitHub. The initial series of false accusations could not stand nor could the support it was getting be stopped. So, the rhetoric and targets shifted to whatever could be found to go after on the newly released alpha version of the language and its new website. In that new mix of what was being thrown at it, there were indeed some very valid criticisms, as can be found with any new language and many sites.
Constructive and valid criticism, is not the same as insults, trolling, misinformation, rivalry, or false accusations. There is clearly a difference. It's disingenuous to pretend something from one group is the same as the other, or that the intent behind what is being done is not different.
Comment · 3 years ago
What you want to use or avoid, is not necessarily what others want or avoid, and we should respect each others different preferences.
Comment · 3 years ago
V is not a finished product nor 1.0 yet. It's unproductive to act like things were carved in stone, from day 1. Programming languages go through development phases, where things do change and lead developers are allowed to make changes.
Comment · 3 years ago
Think it's way more about detractors trying to push a negative narrative on the language, than it's any kind of reflection of the community, who are elsewhere.
Comment · 3 years ago
> should be ignored until it dies into obscurity
That is your interpretation of what is being said, where "prove to be something viable" is being added, and graciously giving the benefit of the doubt to the person who wrote the statement.
I took it, as possibly many others, as "ignore V until it dies". Thus, "V should die", would also be near enough to the intent, malice, and vitriol be conveyed. If someone said something similar to me or about something I created, "Ignore X until it dies", would not interpret it as anything other than ill intent.
Comment · 3 years ago
In both the review itself and in V's documentation, from which the example came, it states that autofree is still WIP. It's arguably disingenuous to pretend otherwise or present unintended usage.
The normal "day-to-day" situation would be to have the GC on or as fallback, and to do otherwise (like -gc none or -prealloc), one should know what they are doing or be prepared to deal with such issues.
Those parts of the review, considered relevant in normal usage were resolved:
https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14803
https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14787
https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14786
But even beyond that, the intent of the so-called review was arguably malevolent. It was not done in good faith, to be helpful to the developers or community, but done to spur on drama (thus adding the vaporware link and spamming it) and knowingly looking for ways to bash an alpha version of the language.
Comment · 3 years ago
On June 20th of 2019, and prior to the open-source release of V on June 22nd of 2019, the creators of competing languages, and various supporters of theirs made very disparaging remarks against V and it's creator[1].
V was falsely characterized and accused of being a "scam", "vaporware", or "fraud" that really didn't exist or its source would not be released to the public. To include, V's creator was allowed to be heavily and repeatedly insulted on the thread.
The creator of one of the languages made a direct plea to not give money to the V project, and instead give that money to himself and another creator[1]. Which, was way beyond the usual lines of civility. This was later added to, with the other creator (back in 2019) making a somewhat similar plea for people to give him their money instead while doing harsh attacks on V, from his website[2].
Surrounding that, was angry talk over how much monetary support V was getting[1]. "He's up to 56% of the income I make on Patreon..., and I've been busting my ass for years..."[1]. This can be viewed as jealousy over the amount another developer was getting, so early on.
Such behavior by language creators, against another, is clearly and extremely irregular. While both creators later on kind of walked backed their earlier statements and attempted to remove themselves from heightened drama and initiating a language war, it was arguably way too late. The statements were walked back a bit, because they were in error. V's creator made an early release for his Patreon supporters, which he has the right to, that was taken out of context. Furthermore, he did release the source for V, 2 days later and in June (as was promised). Despite this, the goal posts were moved, to continually find anything else to attack V on (from when it was an alpha) as a newer competing language.
Over the years, the drama has persisted. To include HN accounts dedicated for the purpose of attacking or insulting V (to include sleeper or newly created accounts), in the frame of an overall wider effort spanning years and various different websites. From time to time, the opposition against V, has also mistakenly or nonchalantly identified themselves as such (can be seen through search). Casual readers on HN or other websites, often don't know of the motives behind unnecessary or odd vitriol, so this can be "hidden" to them.
Lastly, the V language has every right to exist and flourish, as those other languages. V has numerous developers, contributors, and supporters who make it continually better.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20229632
[2] https://andrewkelley.me/post/why-donating-to-musl-libc-proje...
Comment · 3 years ago
Developers are allowed to get or ask for contributions, donations, or sponsors.
To add to the strangeness of how its being mischaracterized, was the apparent jealousy (back in 2019) over the amount of donations that other developers got. Then for certain ones to have got so upset at getting less, they started to bash and publicly ask people to give them their money instead.
Somehow, it's OK for X to get money for their competing language, but it's "wrong" for Y to get money for their language.
> I'm sure V is a very nice language but HN doesn't need to have threads about it
It looks to be giving the impression (maybe unintentionally) that threads about V are unwanted on HN. Where it's fine to have threads about other languages, despite them clearly having issues, controversy, or need of moderation as well.
All threads about V or posts initiated in a thread which concerns V, are not posted by "V's people" and definitely not by me. For that matter, I'm completely independent, despite what might be the perception. I have no relation nor any connection to who created this thread, or many others about V. I just was commenting on a topic that I saw on HN and expressing opinions.
> which incidentally was kickstarted by someone on your side, not the other side...
I have zero ideal who manofmanysmiles or modinfo are (both accounts existing years before mine), nor am I on their side or rather it's unfair to categorize us as being on the same side.
That someone posts something that contains a bit of support or is positive about V, can be completely unrelated to them being teamed up or in collusion, but just coincidental opinions or observations.
In fact, it appears manofmanysmiles is not a user of the language, but an outsider asking for opinions. Which then people posted their opinions in response, as would be expected for just about any topic or that kind of post.
> would be for those of you who feel aggrieved by unfair criticism to stop being provoked...
Would this not be true for both sides, not the side that is perceived as being supportive of V?
I thought the point of HN was to allow and respectfully give different opinions about a topic, not to censor a particular side or topic.
This definition could be interpreted that the positive side be removed. And purposefully allow damaging or negative information to be unchallenged and spread by default.
> critics will never go away
Totally agree, as this is the nature of human discussion.
> But it means developing the capacity not to be so easily provoked, which (I know well from my own experience) is not so easy.
If the meaning is to "grow a thicker skin" in response to criticism, on that we agree. A higher quality of respectful and informative discussion should be aspired to and engaged in, as part of maintaining the desired standard of HN. And would be why many, like myself, have enjoyed or have come here to see.