> OP kicks a conversation in poor faith with "Wanna know something funnier also posted in previous thread?" about a V bug - which HN turns a blind eye to - and then suddenly the HN community pounces on the V maintainer when he gets frustrated in return? What?
I specifically linked to the_duke's comment offering some good-faith feedback.
---
But I digress. My intention isn't to argue that V is bad, just to provide context to why it's such a divisive topic.
> I specifically linked to the_duke's comment offering some good-faith feedback.
My point with this thread is it follows a common pattern. A HN user will post something in bad faith. The maintainer will respond with annoyance. Then someone like the_duke will moralize about how the maintainer shouldn't be so antagonistic. Then GP will put it in a list and say "the lead dev and community do not engage criticism in good faith."
There are some repeating thought patterns on some hot topics in this forum that makes me question whether it's work of trolls or naive people asking the same questions that end always the exact same way.
When it happens, it feels like living in Groundhog Day.
See any Brave post. There's a comment about BAT stealing money, people debunking it and the same arguments over 10 comments. Just below that someone mentions Eich's history at Mozilla, same pattern.
See any Urbit post.
See any V post.
See any foone post.
In these threads you find always the same archetypes of comments and posturing it makes me wonder if we're really living in a simulation of not very good AI. Or that a group of people is collectively pretty dumb and more predictable than you'd think.
The maintainer is the face of the product in certain ways. We would never defend a corporate CEO responding in annoyance to their free/paid users because it's unprofessional and puts the brand in a negative spotlight. In the same way, if you're leading/promoting a project you are held to a higher standard. You can choose to ignore bad faith comments, or respond in a positive way to bring the discussion to a higher level of civility.
Yes, it's annoying to have people give bad faith criticisms. But if you want a product to succeed and you want to foster a positive community, you should always elevate the level of civil discourse. So I disagree with your sentiment that other users are moralizing here.
If I'm going to engage with a product, it gives me much higher confidence knowing that the maintainers conduct themselves in a professional manner, even when a user is unprofessional.
> OP claims V has "huge promises it hasn't kept". V is version 0.3. This seems wildly unfair.
Keep in mind that V didn't start out as a v0.1 with an ambitious roadmap, it popped up as website with a bunch of exciting features that made it seem further along than it actually was (https://web.archive.org/web/20190315194630/https://vlang.io/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20190315173156/https://volt-app....). I suspect that's what OP is referring to. Incidentally, this is also what prompted articles like "V is for Vaporware".
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31946715
> OP kicks a conversation in poor faith with "Wanna know something funnier also posted in previous thread?" about a V bug - which HN turns a blind eye to - and then suddenly the HN community pounces on the V maintainer when he gets frustrated in return? What?
I specifically linked to the_duke's comment offering some good-faith feedback.
---
But I digress. My intention isn't to argue that V is bad, just to provide context to why it's such a divisive topic.