As noted in the post, generics could solve this, so I'm looking forward to Go 2 if indeed generics is included. There's a few QOL issues I'd like to see addressed in 2 which would make Go a lot nicer to work with, and I say that as someone who spends most of their time working on Go codebases.
I'm always wary of such "<language X> isn't great because..." posts as I find that the frustration is as much a function of the developer's competence, (lack of) imagination and familiarity with the language and its idioms, as it is with the language itself.
The blog posts topic was not "immutable data structures", rather the need for boilerplate code in Go because of the lack of generics. The particular example was one of immutable data structures, however that was an example rather than the topic. The author themselves notes that "generics would solve all of the issues above".
> No, Generics make it possible to create a generic immutable data structure
I am sure i can read.
James' comment you quote was responding to your comment, which he parsed generically as "Generics don't solve T", with a comment of the form, "Generics make it possible to implement a generic T."
I'm confident you can read, but I'm not so sure about your reading comprehension and critical thinking.