The claims made in that blog post are easily verifiable. Your claim that all issues have been fixed was hard to believe, so I checked myself. The first two have indeed been fixed (these involve printing "nil" for a null pointer rather than crashing), but the third (undefined behavior on integer overflow) still reproduces. I didn't go through the rest of them, but expect a similar pattern.
I encourage people following the progress of the V language to look at actual facts rather than trying to evaluate claims based on the language of those claims. One of the reasons why V is so divisive is that a lot of untrue claims are being made (unusually so for a programming language), and people don't respond well to that being called out.
Thank you for posting such a beautiful example of a false claim about your language.
The front page of vlang.io has prominently featured under "Safety" the line "No undefined behavior". Saying that C-like undefined behavior[1] is "expected" directly contradicts that. I'll also point out that Nim, another language which compiles to C as a target, addresses this correctly.
Your website says on the homepage "No undefined behavior". Integer overflow in C is explicitly undefined behavior. What does the phrase "undefined behavior" mean to you? Because it's clearly something very different from what it means to the rest of the industry.
I think there's a communication issue on your end here.
If someone raises an issue re: integer overflows, and you don't change the behavior, it's not 'fixed'. It may be 'addressed' or 'resolved' by responding with with something like "it's working as designed" or "if it's good enough for C, it's good enough for me!", but it's _not_ fixed. I don't think you should claim:
> All of the issues there were fixed several days ago
> I didn't go through the rest of them, but expect a similar pattern.
You verified two issues were fixed, ran into one issue and then you expect a similar pattern of what exactly...?
Why didn't your comment go like this:
"Hey I went through to verify the these issues were fixed and I'm getting an undefined behaviour on integer overflow, here is how I tested (show code), are you able to reproduce this?"
That would be much less divisive and result in a proper discussion.
I think you'll find if you try to "call" people out instead of asking questions you'll be met with the same tone you gave them.
-- EDIT - replying to @paskozdilar below --
It could be that GP tested incorrectly? Since things are getting so serious shouldn't we see the code GP used to test before mob shaming?
You seem to be jumping to the conclusion the issue is not fixed. I don't think hurling "narcissism" is needed at all here.
Hey, I went through another one of the examples, the lack of SFINAE, here's how I tested: I used the same methodology as the linked blog post. I'm getting the same compiler error as the blog post. Are you able to reproduce this?
I encourage people following the progress of the V language to look at actual facts rather than trying to evaluate claims based on the language of those claims. One of the reasons why V is so divisive is that a lot of untrue claims are being made (unusually so for a programming language), and people don't respond well to that being called out.