Talk:V (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:40, 14 March 2023

Revision as of 02:41, 14 March 2023

Line 8:

:I, too, though, commend you for attempting to improve the draft. You're getting somewhere. [[User:LVDP01|LVDP01]] ([[User talk:LVDP01|talk]]) 20:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks Sirfurboy for the input. I can see your perspective, but aren't the 2nd and 3rd statements offering proof of the statement above it? Each link, is placed to verify the validity of the statement. Thus it seems like we are caught in a circular catch-22. The section is C translation. Simply stating that, offers no context to the reader. The statements below are expanding on what that means in respect to features of the V language. Thus, "V can translate your entire C project and offer you the safety, simplicity, and compilation speed-up (via modules)." But now is that statement merely a claim or a fact? Therefore the next statement and link are proof of the claim, "Translating DOOM from C to V and building it takes less than a second." Furthermore, V is not selling anything by this. There is no product. That it can quickly translate a C program to V, is a proven statement, that is backed up by visual proof.

:Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectperfectly fine with us removing statements to not look like advertising or promotional content, or rewording statements with flowery sales-like language. But worried that removal of key explanatory statements, can lead to the next editor taking a position that statements are mere claims without merit or proof.

:"What secondary sources benchmark this?" A primary source was used to show visual proof, along with secondary sources, in the context of capability to translate C projects to V. As is it can be interpreted that you are objecting to speed or type of hardware, the statement was removed. The statement of fact, on the capability of the language to do such a translation remains.

:How about this?

{{tqb|

:C translation

:LVDP01, thank you for giving input as well. You mentioned a few things. "it does this so fast!" or "it does this in this really unique and revolutionary way that deserves an expansive mention!". I'm trying to narrow down actual specifics, so that we can come to a consensus as to what language is objectionable or acceptable. Can you please refer to specific lines in the draft that you might object to and give an explanation. Would greatly appreciate it.

:V (via modules) can safely, simply, and quickly translate an entire C project.[1][2]

:Based on the comments you both have made so far, anything that could reasonably give an appearance of being written like an advertisement or promotional has been removed. Additional secondary sources have been added.

:An example is it can translate DOOM from C to V; building can take less than a second.[3]

:[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 0002:4041, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

:Translation for Go and JavaScript are already under development[4]}}

:LVDP01, thank you for giving input as well. You mentioned a few things. "it does this so fast!" or "it does this in this really unique and revolutionary way that deserves an expansive mention!". I'm trying to narrow down specifics, so that we can come to a consensus as to what language is objectionable. Can you please refer to specific lines in the draft that you object to and give an explanation. Would greatly appreciate it.

:[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 00:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)