> Vx is the right language for the thing that must be correct and fast across ten kinds of silicon. It is not the right language for the thing you are still figuring out.

A bit tangential, but I really *really* appreciate them making this distinction, and wish more people did this. Way too many tools try to advertise themselves as all things for all people, catering to all use cases, and that helps nobody.

I'm reminded of a number of critiques that have popped up over the years such as "C Is Not a Low-level Language: Your computer is not a fast PDP-11" and others I can't remember at the moment. In essence our "low level" languages are designed to run on an abstract machine that hasn't changed much since the 70s while the actual hardware it's meant to abstract over has become incredibly sophisticated. As a simple example consider how many programming languages have something simple like SIMD support without dropping into compiler intrinsics or relying on the optimizer.

I've actually created some experimental DSL embeddings around this idea before as I find it a fascinating area. Skimming through the Vx docs it seems like it is moving some of the abstract machine into the type system for greater flexibility.

Is there a backstory for this being named Vx? Seems a bit too close for comfort to the VxWorks OS, though there seems to be no connection.

Why is it giving me Vlang vibe

> Heterogeneity belongs in the type system, not in the runtime.

Is the intent that applications developed with this are compiled for target hardware on a machine-specific basis?

e.g. I define a machine file for my i5 and GTX3080, and another machine file for my gnarly datacenter rack, and the compiler compiles specifically for each?

That way the same source file is "provable" for different hardware configurations without relying on a runtime to be identicallu implemented?

Ugh guys... The front page of your project is the most important thing there is. If you can't even be bothered to write it yourself then I don't have much hope for the rest of your project.

Always nice seeing others arriving at similar conclusions! Those two jump out to me:

- "Most compilers hard-code a cost model. Vx reads one. A machine file describes the memory hierarchy and interconnect of a real part, and the compiler admits or rejects placements against it." I also designed it so that the target system is described by a single file that is picked up by the static analysis - cool!

- "Where data lives is part of its type" also doing that - when I got my project to an mvp state; I need to check out how vxlang does what it does: do they use a literal typesystem, or also compile checks outside of that? If its a type system, is it a dependent type system, or another flavor?

Yet another motivation to finally get my side project starting (forth-adjacent, many similar claims with regards to compile-time checks as vxlang; however, I still have to achieve that, while they already seem to have at least those and more in place; kudos to the vxlang team!)

> Vx is the right language for the thing that must be correct and fast across ten kinds of silicon. It is not the right language for the thing you are still figuring out.

Sounds like a great language for an AI to use then :)

Why does this need a new language? Aren't there existing languages where these concepts can be expressed?

I haven't played with it at all, but the writeup looks promising. Moving a bunch of things into the type system and out of runtime crashes is one of the ways we make progress.

Here we go again, why dont we try this again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta