I strongly disagree with you about the intent of the OP. I'm not saying you don't have other valid points, but want to focus on this particular aspect of your post. I think it's important to not assign benevolence, to what is possible malevolence. Why?

1) It is the author of the blog, that also created this thread on HN.

It shows the intent to disseminate his negative review as far and as wide as possible. And to do so outside of the V community.

2) If the OP was as eager to use the language as you believe, and was disappointed, he could have brought those issues to the V GitHub.

Who is going to the fix those issues that the OP (or anyone else) believes is a problem? It is going to be the V developers. So if the OP wanted those things that he believes are a problem fixed, that's who he has to bring them to.

Just outright mounting a smear campaign or crapping on the V language wherever possible, will never get any of the issues fixed on its own. Instead, as has been shown (by other places linking to the OP's blog), it will only invite more smearing and attacks.

3) The OP starts the review by linking to a number of very contentious posts from competitors and detractors of V, to include those that smear the author and language.

To do such will clearly set off drama, and makes the negative review part of the past drama. It now links them all together. This is not the intent of a person that wishes to "come in peace" or be helpful, this comes across as one having the purpose to set off a blazing fire of more drama.

4) The OP has shown no interest in working with V developers, and that's prior to publishing the review and spreading links to it.

The OP has demonstrated no intent to modify his review for correctness, fairness, or language version. This then puts "at this time", in the context that the review can stay as it is, indefinitely, regardless.

Add to that, the OP is purposely using a throwaway account on GitHub. He simply can disappear, without ever making changes to the review. We all know who the creator of V is and a number of its developers, they are all held accountable, as you are trying to do now. The OP on the other hand, has no accountability nor any "skin in the game".

5) The OP's review is without the necessary context and highly opinionated.

Without feedback or the opinions of the V developers, this is a one-sided negative review full of many debatable points about the claims made. The many gray areas can only gain context, when compared with what the V developers are showing their intentions are and in their responses to what are believed to be issues.

For more clarity at what I'm getting at, I'm not saying there are no issues with various claims or marketing, but rather what is claimed can be a matter of opinion. Because a person or reviewer disagrees with a claim, does not make them or their review 100% right either. Readers are left with a situation as to what percentage of either side is correct.

And no matter at what percentage either side is correct, who is going to fix any discovered issues? Right, it will be the V developers. So if the point was not to do any harm and help create production-quality V, then that's who needed/needs to be informed and worked with. If the OP 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.