Other points in that document are frankly baloney:
- Writing programs that pass -Wall -pedantic, Clang analyzer, PVS, and result in zero Valgrind warnings/errors is a dream of any C/C++ developer. With V it's going to be guaranteed for every V program. (We are not there yet, but very close.)
Clang analyzer is not integrated at all so this is not "very close".
Valgrind tests are mostly disabled (especially with -autofree), this is baloney.
Author has yet to set up PVS or Coverity although it was suggested a few days ago on Discord. Again, baloney.
`-Wall -pedantic` Given V can't even compile valid V programs consistently without generating C _errors_ I find this extremely difficult to believe.
> Stability. New languages using LLVM directly are going to crash often. That's inevitable, and can be seen across all new languages using LLVM. The V compiler hasn't crashed once for me, and I haven't received any crash reports from other users.
V issue tracker has lots of instances of the V compiler crashing. "I haven't received any crash reports from other users" is a verifiable fabrication. ([1](https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/6310), [2](https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/6263), [3](https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/4730))
> Simplicity. LLVM is a huge C++ dependency, meaning that both developers of the language and the users are forced to install it. Calling C++ is not easy from V/C, so C wrappers have to be used, increasing the number of dependencies and complexities.
But you need a C compiler. `v -o` requires either clang (and thus LLVM) or GCC both of which are massive dependencies. This logic rings hollow.