> Ü is heavily inspired by C++, but doesn't have its downsides. Also it was influenced by Rust, but only slightly and thus is way easier to use in comparison to Rust. Any possible coincidence with design and features of other programming languages is unintentional.
Blessed are the humble, for they shall be humbled.
The README makes me never want to use this. A career of seeing the same style from shit vendor salespeople has made me assume that under the hood is nothing but snakes.
> Ü uses RAII for memory and resources management (no GC is involved), but manual memory management may be still used in unsafe code.
Saying "using RAII for memory management" is insufficient - with just RAII, you cannot even assign a class into a passed-in variable. The language designer _must_ make make more choices to get a useful language - maybe affine types, or linear types, or prohibit many C++-like idioms, or maybe just good-old refcounted shared pointers (but I'd argue this is a form of GC...)
> Ü is memory-safe and race-condition-safe, as long as no unsafe code is involved at all or as long as unsafe code is correctly written.
How is this achieved? The docs mention in passing that there is some sort of thread-safe immutable structs, but it is not really clear what's the overall picture and how they interact with non-trivial code. And the examples have nothing on thread.
Just a suggestion... you might want to include an example on your main README.
As someone building a language myself, I'm interested in the other languages actively in development...
But you start with an info dump, no examples, and then a table of features - where the first feature is not something anyone would pick a language for.
You claim to be a memory safe language... And those are buried in the middle of the list. You want to highlight that, and say how you accomplish it. You say you have no GC, but no mention of Affine Ownership or Ref Counting. You talk about thread safety, but no mention of how.
You need to show WHY anyone should care about your language, what problem it's solving, and what that looks like as fast as possible.
In your comparison table, you leave out Go and include Odin - that seems like a mistake. Go punches FAR above its weight class. Dismissing it because it "comes with a heavy runtime" is likely to get your project dismissed, no offense. Odin is - essentially - experimental.
People's attention is fleeting.
Everyone and their mother is building a language or two...
Some things I want to know right away:
1) what stage are you at (honestly, not wishfully)?
2) what problems have you ACTUALLY solved instead of INTEND to solve at some point in the future?
3) how thorough is your testing, what do you have, how much, what's the coverage by category?
4) this seems like a performance language - I want benchmarks. If you don't have a good concurrency story, you better have something, and you better have convincing benchmarks that it actually works, otherwise - why is anyone from Go or Rust or Zig or Nim or Crystal or Swift or even Java/Kotlin/Scala or C# going to think about switching?
Something is wrong with that commit count. There are a total of ~4k commits over nine years [1].
It looks like the author revived the project recently with the help of AI, but the majority of commits are from 2017-2024. Github might be counting all the branch activity from agents.
From the description of the graph you kindly provided:
Contributions per week to master, line counts have been
omitted because commit count exceeds 10,000.
So I am confused as to the "total of ~4k commits over nine years" determination, unless this is in reference to commits Panzerschrek has made spanning the last two years (not nine).
> Ü is heavily inspired by C++, but doesn't have its downsides. Also it was influenced by Rust, but only slightly and thus is way easier to use in comparison to Rust. Any possible coincidence with design and features of other programming languages is unintentional.
Blessed are the humble, for they shall be humbled.
It always starts with one naive idiot though.
The README makes me never want to use this. A career of seeing the same style from shit vendor salespeople has made me assume that under the hood is nothing but snakes.
> Ü uses RAII for memory and resources management (no GC is involved), but manual memory management may be still used in unsafe code.
Saying "using RAII for memory management" is insufficient - with just RAII, you cannot even assign a class into a passed-in variable. The language designer _must_ make make more choices to get a useful language - maybe affine types, or linear types, or prohibit many C++-like idioms, or maybe just good-old refcounted shared pointers (but I'd argue this is a form of GC...)
> Ü is memory-safe and race-condition-safe, as long as no unsafe code is involved at all or as long as unsafe code is correctly written.
How is this achieved? The docs mention in passing that there is some sort of thread-safe immutable structs, but it is not really clear what's the overall picture and how they interact with non-trivial code. And the examples have nothing on thread.
Just a suggestion... you might want to include an example on your main README.
As someone building a language myself, I'm interested in the other languages actively in development...
But you start with an info dump, no examples, and then a table of features - where the first feature is not something anyone would pick a language for.
You claim to be a memory safe language... And those are buried in the middle of the list. You want to highlight that, and say how you accomplish it. You say you have no GC, but no mention of Affine Ownership or Ref Counting. You talk about thread safety, but no mention of how.
You need to show WHY anyone should care about your language, what problem it's solving, and what that looks like as fast as possible.
In your comparison table, you leave out Go and include Odin - that seems like a mistake. Go punches FAR above its weight class. Dismissing it because it "comes with a heavy runtime" is likely to get your project dismissed, no offense. Odin is - essentially - experimental.
People's attention is fleeting.
Everyone and their mother is building a language or two...
Some things I want to know right away:
1) what stage are you at (honestly, not wishfully)?
2) what problems have you ACTUALLY solved instead of INTEND to solve at some point in the future?
3) how thorough is your testing, what do you have, how much, what's the coverage by category?
4) this seems like a performance language - I want benchmarks. If you don't have a good concurrency story, you better have something, and you better have convincing benchmarks that it actually works, otherwise - why is anyone from Go or Rust or Zig or Nim or Crystal or Swift or even Java/Kotlin/Scala or C# going to think about switching?
For those interested, I found code examples here: https://github.com/Panzerschrek/U-00DC-Sprache/tree/master/s...
All good points. I have sent a link to this page to the author of the language (Panzerschrek).
I hope the author is ok with this kind of publicity. He might not have wanted attention if the language is not ready for public opinion.
Bold claims with no examples. Anyone can make a markdown chart with some pros and cons. Description by comparison is weak.
11775 commits in about a year is... concerning.
Something is wrong with that commit count. There are a total of ~4k commits over nine years [1].
It looks like the author revived the project recently with the help of AI, but the majority of commits are from 2017-2024. Github might be counting all the branch activity from agents.
[1] https://github.com/Panzerschrek/U-00DC-Sprache/graphs/contri...
From the description of the graph you kindly provided:
So I am confused as to the "total of ~4k commits over nine years" determination, unless this is in reference to commits Panzerschrek has made spanning the last two years (not nine).This is clearly satire.
Are there plans to bring in compile-time attributes like C#? I really like what I’m seeing here apart from the lack of that.
Edit: also the name is ungoogleable.