[0] is already fixed on master but can't be backported to LTS due to the fix introducing other problems specific to LTS. [2] is closed. [3] should be fixed, but doesn't seem trivial to do. [4] is a regular ol' bug (again, not a language but a library bug). Same goes for [5].
From the linked stuff, only [0] is a true correctness problem of the language and not a bug in a library.
> Some commenters seem exhausted by what they perceive as a continual stream of lies about these topics, which has left them less inclined to post about them.
How is differentiating bugs in the language (parser, compiler, type system, ...) from bugs in libraries implemented in the language "lying about these topics"? It's not like julia is claiming to prevent logic bugs, or am I missing something.
"Yuri's criticism was not that Julia has correctness bugs as a language" would be an appropriate thing to say if none of the bugs in the post were "Wrong if-else control flow."
Edit: "certain libraries when composed with common operations had bugs" also does not seem like a completely on-the-level way to describe bugs in the stdlib that do not require any particular composition to encounter.
If you look at the linked issue, you will see that it is a type intersection issue (a real language issue) mischaracterized as a control-flow bug. Many readers here seem to see that and believe that if statements in Julia are broken - no that is not the case.
From the linked stuff, only [0] is a true correctness problem of the language and not a bug in a library.
> Some commenters seem exhausted by what they perceive as a continual stream of lies about these topics, which has left them less inclined to post about them.
How is differentiating bugs in the language (parser, compiler, type system, ...) from bugs in libraries implemented in the language "lying about these topics"? It's not like julia is claiming to prevent logic bugs, or am I missing something.