Ide

[ddkwork]

Which ide your used?

[changrui]

VS Code or sublime text.

[Wajinn]

You can find a list on awesome-v (https://github.com/vlang/awesome-v):

https://github.com/vlang/awesome-v#syntax-highlighting
https://github.com/vlang/awesome-v#editor-plugins
https://github.com/vlang/notepad-plus-plus (though its getting a bit old)

[JalonSolov]

There is also a simple IDE, written in pure V: https://github.com/IsaiahPatton/Vide/

[ddkwork]

There is also a simple IDE, written in pure V: https://github.com/IsaiahPatton/Vide/

That don't work well for me. Can you creat a github workspace for debugger v code, Thank you.

[nkev]

For anyone looking more recently, there is a new comprehensive plugin with full debugging for Jetbrains IDEs at https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/20287-vlang/docs/quick-start-guide.html

[i582]

You and I have already discussed this in private messages

We did, that's why I'm surprised you bring up that donation thing, when I already explained that before the open source release, V could be bought for $30 on Patreon, so of course Patreon donations would go down after the release.

I want to admit, yes, apparently here my conclusions are not very accurate and I forgot part of our communication. Well, that's just one small part that has little influence on what I'm saying.

[medvednikov]

Yes, not having WIPs was a mistake, and I added missing WIPs (the zero dependencies was later changed to zero library dependencies, it's still an easy bootstrap with cc v.c), and with time these features were implemented, and all WIPs were removed, and all points on the website were very carefully checked, so that all of them are true. I got lots of help and feedback with that, including from you.

Everyone makes mistakes, I fixed it, it was >3 years ago. V is much bigger now and is the result of work of 600+ contributors, and they don't deserve these accusations for a mistake I made.

[Wajinn]

What reviews are you talking about?

Hmm, apparently the author deleted it, because I did nothing.

That kind of slanderous review had nothing to do with the product. Apparently, it was in violation of JetBrains policies, so got removed when they got around to looking at it. Which is great. It was a very foul thing to do, which shows what some people will resort to and what's going on.

[Wajinn]

Compare these two versions.

Don't have a problem with it (and apparently many others). I'm of the opinion that it is unfortunate to allow competitors (who mean to cause confusion and pull away users) to frame one's point of view, which might be happening here. The website is being viewed from their context and narrative. That is, any changes, updates, or clarifications of status and state of product, is somehow malicious or intentional deception (when they know it's not).

When they crafted such a negative narrative against V, they knew what they were doing was unfair and deceptive, because their languages were in such unfinished and unpolished states (WIP) when released and their websites have gone through iterations of changes related to features and claims. They were also taking advantage that their languages were released many years before, so of course at that moment (in 2019), they were ahead. But a much more fair comparison is the state of their languages and websites, upon first public release. And it's worth mentioning, how quickly V caught up or passed various languages in terms of progress and popularity (which can cause resentment).

An alpha release of a programming language is just about impossible to get perfect and not be WIP. As many webmasters and those in marketing know, changes to the website are also done to be informative, make corrections, and reflect status.

[Wajinn]

decrease in donations after the release clearly shows that people realized that they were deceived, since they received far from what was described.

No it does not. People were paying $30 for the pre-release build of V. Once it came out, some no longer wanted to pay. That resulted in that whopping $100/month drop.

After re-reading the previous posts and more history, I'm going to add a bit more (at the risk of overkill), because I think there is a disconnect on a particular point and which comes from confusion and distortions generated by Andrew's negative framing (back in 2019). I'm only mentioning this, because an old link of his was posted in this thread and used as if proof of something.

Andrew (who is a direct competitor), appeared to make an effort to break off supporters and/or draw additional funding towards himself and projects benefiting him, at the expense of V. And did so numerous times, on different occasions. People might not be aware of the history or context, but if dug into enough, it's pretty clear and obvious. Andrew (and others in a similar position) should not be used as an honest objective party (when clearly not) or as any kind of valid source.

There were people paying for pre-releases of V, which were not available prior to the open source general public release in June of 2019. This is often called early access. This is a very legitimate and valid way of promoting products, showing support, and helping to fund work on it. In this case, the end goal is the release of a programming language. An alpha release of a programming language, almost by definition, is a WIP. Nobody in their right mind would have the expectation of a finished language on public release. Rather, as paying supporters, they would be able to see and use the language before it goes public. Paying for early access, does not mean expecting and paying for a specific feature set that must be or was guaranteed to be finished by a set date.

That is a key point to be clear on, because among Andrew's arguments, was accusing the V project of fooling people into donating to it (in 2019) because it was a closed source project behind a paywall. That's flat wrong or purposeful distortion. Those people were getting early access to the language, as paying supporters, so they can use it or see for themselves how things were coming along.

When the V language was publicly released, those with the motivation of paying specifically for early access, now had access. So they may have decided to no longer donate. That's much different from Andrew's misleading narrative of there being a "backlash" because they were "deceived". How were they "deceived"? They had early access to use the language, knew more about what was going on than anybody else, and had access to its creator. And the majority of V supporters continued donating, to further language development.

This should also be seen in the context and the narrative of deception promoted by competitors, where V was said to be vaporware or a scam. As in V didn't actually exist, and that people were supporting and donating for nothing, thus they should support and give their money to them (competitors). When it was clear that V really did exist and was publicly released, the narratives quickly shifted to finding anything about the website that could be questioned or features being WIP of a newly released alpha.