If someone advertises their language as having no Null, no reading from uninitialized memory, and no mutation of immutable values, then I really do expect to be able to rely on those being completely absent. It is dishonest and shameful to say "No null" on the front page of the website when the developers are well aware of ways that their system fails to actually prevent null references.

If I'm buying a sandwich advertised as "no cockroaches", then I think it's appropriate to be pissed off about there being bugs in my sandwich, especially when it's clear that the sandwich shop knows all about the bugs in the sandwich and they just prefer to falsely claim their absence.

I would have no complaints if the developers would just describe these things as ambitious goals they haven't actually accomplished yet, instead of declaring that they've completed work they know they have not completed.

No, you would look at the version of the language, realize it's 0.2 and not production ready yet.

No, I really wouldn't, and don't. This is the kind of thing that reads to me as honest for a new in-development language: https://github.com/cruxlang/crux#status

Features are explicitly listed as working, partially done, and not yet implemented. You're really truly allowed to say "This doesn't work yet, but we're working on...", and it is legitimate to criticize people for choosing to lie instead.

Well that's what it literally says on the website:

> V avoids doing unnecessary allocations in the first place by using value types, string buffers, promoting a simple abstraction-free code style.

> Right now allocations are handled by a minimal and well performing GC until V's autofree engine is production ready.