pekko VS v

Pekko is open source, has the same API. So there's no problem there.

Understandable considering the size of Pekko and how much time is passed, I would recommend asking any questions/concerns on either the Pekko mailing list https://lists.apache.org/[email protected] or on Github discussions https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/discussions.

Another big reason behind the "struggle" is we have done further improvements. For example the first release of Pekko will support all Scala versions from 2.12 up to 3.3.0 LTS (which was just released a couple of days ago). This also includes Pekko's modules which means we had to either add back in Scala 2.12 support or Scala 3 support. Yet another example would be https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/281 which allowed us to drop scala-java8-compat dependency for Scala 2.13 or higher. So while these improvements aren't technically necessary, they have a large impact on Pekko going forward, i.e. the scala-java8-compat change means that we can drop Scala 2.12 at any point in time without breaking users.

Apache Pekko is the open source fork of Akka. I know they can use more hands right now - https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/issues

There is an option missing: Considering switching to pekko when it's ready: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko

- In 2022, Lightbend changed the Akka licence, made it proprietary and very expensive at large scale

Software that starts out as more "pure", non-corporate open-source can still turn the tables on you and charge large licensing fees later. But at least if it's open source from the start, it can be forked, e.g. for Akka, there's this Apache fork that was started after Akka changed its licence: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko . This is the key open source protection, and it's true for both corporate and non-corporate projects.

Their site is clearly showing the language is in beta. The V documentation also states that autofree is WIP, and to use the GC instead. This isn't a corporate created language, but looks to be a true volunteer open source effort from people around the world.

Their community, in comparison to others, even has their discussions open and open threads for criticism[1]. These

[1]https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610

V also has this https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#embed_fil...

Goroutines was the selling point for me until they decided to introduce telemetry in their toolchain; that was what forced me to stop using Golang as a whole.

About GC, I would say: if you implement C++'s RAII mechanism to replace garbage collection, then I believe this project will have a bright future.

My final question is the following: how `pcz` compares to V language, from a syntax's perspective [1]?

[1] https://github.com/vlang/v

V has the right to exist, have its supporters, and do things its own way. The creator and developers of V, from what I have seen, has always responded well to constructive criticism. Their language has discussions opened at their GitHub, unlike those for various other languages. They even have a thread for what people don't like and want improved about the language[1], again, something many other languages don't have.

A lot of what was going on initially, was coming from obvious competitors, to include being uncivil, inflammatory, and insulting. The initial "criticism" was not so much that, but false accusations of the language being a scam, vaporware, fraud, or didn't really exist. To include attacks and jealousy about its funding and having supporters. This was not any kind of "valid" criticism, that the creator or contributors of the language could reason about.

The "criticism" never died down, but rather after V was open-sourced and established itself on GitHub. The initial series of false accusations could not stand nor could the support it was getting be stopped. So, the rhetoric and targets shifted to whatever could be found to go after on the newly released alpha version of the language and its new website. In that new mix of what was being thrown at it, there were indeed some very valid criticisms, as can be found with any new language.

Constructive and valid criticism, is not the same as insults, trolling, misinformation, rivalry, or false accusations. There is clearly a difference. It's disingenuous to pretend something from one group is the same as the other, or that the intent behind what is being done is not different.

[1] https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610