vos VS .NET Runtime

The creator of V made some big claims that raised a few eyeballs, they've gained a reasonable following over the years, have a pretty serious looking website (https://vlang.io) a beer-money level Patreon following and some corporate partnerships/sponsors. However have experienced some pretty brutal takedowns over the years, with some of the bolder claims about the language/compiler being exposed as being.

A word I keep seeing in relation to V is "aspirational" - the project aspires to be a serious language with some major features, so I think it's fair to approach it with a more critical eye than one would a kid's side-project. I think HN would have been pretty understanding if they were open about the state of the various features and were a little less defensive when they encounter articles that treat it like a Real Language and review it as such. If the authors don't want this kind of feedback they can just say front-and-centre (or on their FAQ @ https://github.com/vlang/v/wiki/FAQ) "this is a toy" or "this is pre-alpha"

Autofree has existed for years and can work. Here is a demo. It is used in V's Vinix OS, Ved, and other applications. Part of the issue is there are detractors who purposefully spread misinformation nor know about its other memory options, and the other part is understanding how to use it.

Another option is to write the kernel in V. Vinix is an OS written in V. You can use it for reference when building your project.

And that's why vinix [1] is full of manual free call? That tells how good autofree is, isn't it? Can you compile v compiler with autofree? Last time I checked, you can't.

[1] https://github.com/vlang/vinix/search?q=free&type=code

vweb, volt, and ved are not a "little more than alpha"

yes, the os is being developed in V, and it can already run bash, GCC, G++, and Doom.

https://github.com/vlang/vinix

It's a great concept, but languages like Rust (https://www.rust-lang.org/), Zig (https://ziglang.org), Vlang (https://vlang.io/), etc... are already running with a similar idea to being easy to interact with C and are viable alternatives to it as well. Vlang even created its own OS, Vinix (https://github.com/vlang/vinix), to show its capabilities in this regard.

Seems to me, Cello would be more for those C programmers that didn't want to try the various alternative languages that are now out, and happen to agree with its developer's interpretation of what high level constructs would look like. The point of these alternative languages is to offer features that C doesn't have or to implement them in easier or clearer ways.

Vinix shows the capabilities of V on bare metal, in additional to it being useful for high-level programming as well. https://github.com/vlang/vinix

It's an interesting "time is a circle" problem given that a century only has 100 years and then we loop around again. 2-digit years is convenient for people in many situations but they are very lossy, and horrible for machines.

It reminds me of this breaking change to .Net from last year.[1][2] Maybe AA just needs to update .Net which would pad them out until the 2050's when someone born in the 1950s would be having...exactly the same problem in the article. (It is configurable now so you could just keep pushing it each decade, until it wraps again).

Or they could use 4-digit years.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/75148

These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.

Reference:

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...

CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.

DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591

Support zstd Content-Encoding:

We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.

There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.

Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620

https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet exists for source build that stitches together SDK, Roslyn, runtime and other dependencies. A lot of them can be built and used individually, which is what contributors usually do. For example, you can clone and build https://github.com/dotnet/runtime and use the produced artifacts to execute .NET assemblies or build .NET binaries.

Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.

Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.

To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...