There's a lot to be said about the wisdom of publishing material like this, and it's fine to object. But phrasings like "they were able to lie in every sentence" do not sit well with me, especially since the bit that follows doesn't actually disprove the claims all that well. It's assuming the worst possible motivation (intentional deception) rather than the much more likely motivation (small team, tad too much enthusiasm, and perhaps at times, inexperience). I'm not entirely trusting the objectivity of an author who describes these sort of things as "lies". Even worse are things like:
> He lies that coroutines work with IO. I’ll clarify that by working, I personally mean context switching when necessary, and not the fact that the program does not crash.
So the functionality is correct, but not in a way the author would like it to, therefore it's a lie to claim it works. Eh? It's fine to criticize that the implementation isn't any good, of course, but employing such narrow definition of "works" and then calling someone a "liar" over it seems rather, eh, much.
In short: not a fan.
I'm not saying the V people have always smelled of roses either, but this article is definitely part of the problem with the general drama and toxicity surrounding V. I find it more than a little sad that vlang.io apparently needs Cloudflare DoS protection (I assume they didn't add it for the craic).