I'm working on Beam, a web app that lets you transfer files between nearby devices using QR codes - completely offline, with no servers involved, and leaving absolutely no trace.
Beam is perfect for sharing sensitive documents, transferring files when you can't use USB, email, or cloud storage.
I've been checking on the progress of V for years. The claims were always big. But it has kept progressing and expanding. All in all it is quite promising.
That review is almost a year old, and some of the findings are different with a current version of V.
Such posts are examples and are instructional about the behavior of detractors and competitors of Vlang. At this point, more people can see and realize what such antics are really about.
1) The last time that HN account posted was in 2021, it's now 2023. Looks like a sleeper account to do such things.
2) The supposed review, which was really a "hit piece", was done with a throwaway account. No other language reviews, or anything else, was ever done by mawfig.
3) The apparent intent of the author, and those it appears they were working with, was to use the dishonest review to spread misinformation and dissuade others from using a programming language of a rival.
The "review", right off the bat, was about setting off drama by linking it to other past drama and smears. A smear campaign on the V language is not about getting any issues fixed or an honest assessment. Its about more drama, smearing, and attacks. Which was the apparent intent.
4) The "hit piece" was for an Alpha version of V, back in 2022. It is now 2023, and V is in Beta.
5) Anything, which kind of had any substance, from the review has already been fixed.
6) If the author of the "review" was really eager to use, help, or fix the V language then he/she could have brought those issues (he/she had a GitHub account) to the V GitHub (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/she believes are a problem fixed, that's who he/she should have gone to.
7) 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 the review for correctness, fairness, or language version. Detractors and sleeper accounts link and use it, regardless of how old, incorrect, and irrelevant.
Some of your responses seem very on point, but the majority of your list of points is on the honor of the author's character. The character of an author matters when their credibility is an important element to the discussion -- but the author isn't claiming to have special credibility.
Arguments about how the author should be trying to improve the problem or work with other developers seems morally presumptive on what someone ought to do. If I complain about how my Safari is slow, I think it would be rather morally shrill to put the honor of my character into question just because I didn't even bother to open communications with the Safari team. Like, a lot of people complain without reaching out to the teams that build or manage their experiences. That does not make them malicious.
> The character of an author matters when their credibility is an important element to the discussion...
In this case it is, because the author of the hit piece is presenting themselves in the role of an expert that is capable of evaluating a programming language and then if it's worth even checking out or using. Then the author and what it looks like those they are working with or other detractors, went on a smear campaign (back then) at HN and other websites, using the evaluation as if some kind of legitimate "proof".
If the author was really an expert, doing a legit evaluation, then many would agree they should have shown who they are and not use a throwaway account. Anybody can anonymously make hit pieces on other languages, but the public (including myself) have the right to question their motives and character for doing so.
> Speaking of the psychology behind hit pieces, creating a point-by-point list of the faults of someone's character is kinda what I would expect from a hit piece.
We can say that everyone's "psychology" is on display, when they post something. But to an actual point about this issue, I'm responding to a post that was made on HN. That's much different from generating a "hit piece" on a blog, and then linking to it from many different websites. Point by point, is to make the response and those things being objected to or should have light shed on them, easier to read quickly.
10 years. Still I remember his speech at Stanford 2005 [1]
"Death is the destination we all share, no one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be because death is very likely the single best invention of life."
Beam is perfect for sharing sensitive documents, transferring files when you can't use USB, email, or cloud storage.
Try it here: https://get-beam.vercel.app