That "review" was a thinly disguised hit piece against the V language. 1) The "review" is now significantly wrong and already outdated. Doesn't mention it is

That "review" was a thinly disguised hit piece against the V language. 1) The "review" is now significantly wrong and already outdated. Doesn't mention it is reviewing an Alpha or even the version. Anything of substance in the review was mostly minor and has already been fixed: https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14803 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14803 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14787 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14787 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14786 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/14786 2) The author of the "review" used a throwaway account for the apparent purposes of recommending to not use V. The author of the "review" can run away and hide, where the creators and developers of V are accountable to the public and supporters. This includes that the author of the review never has to update or make corrections to his hit piece, while still spreading links to it all over the internet. 3) The "review" is used as a linked reference document for further attacks by competitors and detractors. And as has already happened on various other internet sites, including here. 4) If the author of the "review" was really eager to use and fix the V language, he could have brought those issues (he has a GitHub account) to the V GitHub (https://github.com/vlang/v/issues https://github.com/vlang/v/issues). Who is going to fix any issues that the author believes is a problem? It is going to be the V developers. So if the author of the review wanted those things that he believes are a problem fixed, that's who he has to bring them to. 5) The author of the "review" starts it by linking to a number of very contentious posts from competitors and detractors of V, to include those that smear the author and language. This turned the "review", right off the bat, into setting off drama. A smear campaign on the V language will never get any of the issues fixed on its own, just only invite more drama, smearing, and attacks. Which looks like the original intent. 6) The author of the "review" has shown no interest in working with V developers, and that's prior to publishing the review and spreading links to it. No intent has been shown to modify his review for correctness, fairness, or language version. 7) The author's review doesn't provided the necessary context and is highly opinionated. Without feedback or the opinions of the V developers, this is a one-sided negative review full of many debatable points, that does little to help readers outside of trying to produce a negative impression and smear the language. If the review author is not interested in working with V developers, and rather produce and disseminate drama or facilitate smearing, then that's a reflection of their real intent.