> Does anyone understand what the end objective of V is?
The Vlang site makes it clear what their objectives are[1]. "Simple, fast, safe, compiled. For developing maintainable software." They also have a roadmap[2], showing what their end objective version (or production release) will have.
> I've known about this language for I think 4-5 years and for some reason it's still v0.5...
They just came out with version 0.5 (2 weeks ago from this post), so obviously that statement is mistaken.
No it has not been 0.5 for years. Check their homepage. You can see the timeline for the releases there. 0.5 was released a few days ago and is a major step for the language.
There is a noprocrast feature in your settings to specify how long you can stay on for a single session and the frequency at which you can view HN. Super helpful!
There is a noprocrast feature in your settings to specify how long you can stay on for a single session and the frequency at which you can view HN. Super helpful!
I would reject the premise that the field of molecular/biological simulation is underexplored nor that existing approaches are "slower and harder to use than they need to be". This is a field that has been explored, in fact, by the most brilliant minds and the difficulty arises more in theoretical considerations (that is, devising algorithms to faithfully approximate the developed physics) rather than an obvious no-brainer application of AI.
The field of molecular and biological simulation is far more than simply "Newtonian mechanics". There is indeed a field called molecular dynamics (MD) that relies on "classical mechanics" yet it's defined usually in the Lagrangian formalism. Furthermore, there has been tons of work over the past few decades in developing more accurate numerical approximation algorithms. There is a ton of a theory in this field and if you're interested, the "MD Bible" is "Understanding Molecular Simulation" by Daan Frankel.
Now, MD is just the tip of the iceberg. Almost all chemistry simulations are built entirely from making subtle approximations to quantum mechanics and carefully building up frameworks. For example, Hartree-Fock theory (HF), Density Functional Theory (DFT), Couple Cluster theory (CCSD(T)), etc. Then there is a field known colloquially as semi-empirical methods which are a sort of combination of the above two methods. And that's just on the side of chemical simulations (i.e. I'm excluding physics-specific simulations etc).
And now, more recently there has been effort in building machine-learned interatomic potentials, machine-learned density functionals, equivariant graph neural networks, etc etc.
If you're still interested in these class of problems, consider trying to build a good model for OMol25: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762
Slight tangent yet I think is quite interesting... you can try out the ARC-AGI 2 tasks by hand at this website [0] (along with other similar problem sets). Really puts into perspective the type of thinking AI is learning!
Totally agree with this point. There are several advice that pg and similar roles give which are not universally true. I reiterate your point that "doing things that don't scale" is meant specifically for searching for 1-1 user experience advice.
A similar exmaple is "Make something people want". This is generally true advice in focusing your efforts on solving customer's problems. Yet, this is disastrous advice if taking literally to the fullest extent (you can only imagine).
reply