Re: candidate of add. language in src (not rust)

On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 13:59:53 +0300
Anthony Pankov <anthony.pankov@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Just for note.
> 
> XLibre developer(s) is trying to (automatically) convert X server sources to
> V language.
> 
> (below opinion is not related to XLibre people)
> 
> V language is a transpiler. May be it has a good ratio of cost of
> maintaining in the src codebase to increasing src audience/contributors. 
> 
> V is aimed to be a "simple language for building maintainable programs".
> This claim make it theoretically suitable for developing none performance
> critical programs in an operating system base.
> 
> 
> As for XLibre I think they would like to express (part of) a long lived and
> rarely touched C-codebase in a more maintainable and understandable way.
> Which allow them to touch a code with a more confidence when it is a
> necessarity for.

While good compilation speed and small size is a plus, in my opinion, a new
language in base system must offer simplicity in writing scripts which offer
scripting languages. A quick look at V shows it has e.g. immutable strings so
it is not very free from boilerplates. After Perl axed out, we have only
awkward /bin/sh as alternative which often lacks features, and going down (to
low-level) is bad option, we need to go up.

May be I'm missing something and V is more friendly and high-level?

-- 
WBR, @nuclight