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

I'm still catching up on the weekends email. So...
On 2025-09-20 09:00, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> 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?
IHO everything should be written in assembler. But even then there needs
to be some middleware. Maybe C? ;-)
While I've only just started pllaying with it. V seems like a hybrid of C and 
Perl.
Writing it feels much like writing Perl. Which I find a great deal simpler 
than
outright C. Early days. But it seems to show promise.

--Chris

-- 
There is no such place as the internet