vos VS zig

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

When writing code in a scripting language, sometimes you need that extra bit of performance (or maybe an async feature from Zig).

NodeJS is by no means a slow runtime, it wouldn’t be so popular if it was. But compared to Bun, it’s slow. Bun was built from the ground up with speed in mind, using both JavascriptCore and Zig. The Bun team spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to make Bun fast, including lots of profiling, benchmarking, and optimizations.

ntdll.dll!RtlUserThreadStart()

There are valid reasons to use APIs from NTDLL. Where I disagree with zig#1840 is the idea that it is always better to use NTDLL versions of API. Every other software ecosystem uses the standard Win32 APIs and diverging from that without a good reason seems like a good way to have unexpected behavior. One concrete example is most users and programmers expect Windows to redirect some file system paths when running on WOW64. But this is implemented in Kernel32, not ntdll.

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/11894

Zig also has an IRC channel on libera (#zig) that is moderated by Andrew Kelley.[1]

[1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/wiki/Community

1. ZIG - $103,611

ESP32 and STM32 support is very welcome!

I have been following https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/5467 for a while and progress seemed to have slowed significantly

I have never used it directly, take what I say with a grain of salt.

As far as I know at least part of the idea was to eliminate the function coloring problem by letting the compiler do some nifty compile-time deductions. This had some issues (I don't know if this is still planned, it seems like the kind of thing that should not work in practice). Additionally, there were all sorts of hard technical issues with LLVM, debugging, etc.

I recommend checking the issue tracker, eg. https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/6025

I personally don't understand the domain well enough at all, but honestly, I feel like (if possible) Zig should try to double down on its allocator approach.

Instead of trying to use some compile-time deduction magic explicitly pass around an "async runtime/executor" struct which you explicitly have to interact with. Why not?

Yes, fundamentally. In Rust if you take a parameter of generic type T without any bounds, you cannot call anything on it except for things which are defined for all types. If you specify bounds, only things required by the bounds can be called (+ the ones for all types). Another difference is where you get an error when you try pass something which doesn't adhere to a certain trait. In Rust you will get an error at the call site, not at the place of use (except if you don't specify any bounds).

Zig is doing just fine without any trait mechanism and it simplifies the language a lot but it does come up from time to time. The usual solution is to just get type information via @typeInfo and error out if the type is something you're not expecting [0]. Not everybody is happy about it though [1] because, among other things, it makes it more difficult to discover what the required type actually is.

[0] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/b3aed4e2c8b4d48b8b12f606...

[1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/17198