The issue isn't about the == operator returning false. It's about the == operator's return value not being typed.
Evaluating "a == a" could return the string "potatoe" which would evaluate to false (and make no sense).
I don't see the big deal with this. If your == operator is buggy, it's buggy, no matter whether you can only return a boolean or some random other type.
(I personally found most of the criticism in the article to be in the same vein: inflammatory, superficial comments after a quick reading of the spec.)
Generally any blog written a day after the spec released is going to be pretty superficial. It isn't like they have time to be able to construct any real criticisms. Personally, if not being able to say if(a) is the worst criticism of the v.1 spec you can find, then it must be a pretty decent spec.
Evaluating "a == a" could return the string "potatoe" which would evaluate to false (and make no sense).
I don't see the big deal with this. If your == operator is buggy, it's buggy, no matter whether you can only return a boolean or some random other type.
(I personally found most of the criticism in the article to be in the same vein: inflammatory, superficial comments after a quick reading of the spec.)