If you want me to take a critique of Go seriously these days, pick another language to compare it to. Any other language.
And yeah, I'm aware that 5 years ago there were a ton of "Go vs Java" articles. I didn't think much of them then, either.
I tried really hard. I knew a lot of people would instantly have that reaction, but I couldn't find another way to show that there is another way, short of pulling it out of thin air (which would've made for an even longer, less accessible article).
Good article BTW, IMO.
It's an example of extremely differing philosophies - of which Rust is a great example of the opposite spectrum of Go.
I imagine there may be a couple other examples, maybe something like Haskell (I wouldn't know), but I'm guessing the author just knew Rust better for this comparison.
It's easier to illustrate problems that shouldn't be problems (in your eyes) if you have solutions for them - especially solutions that you believe work well. Rust's take on these nitpicks is something that the author clearly thinks Go is lacking on.
In my view, this post is a critique on Go and the "simplicity" mantra it has; and only that.
Certainly not C++, no?
I'm not questioning the critique - no language is perfect, and Go certainly has its share of problems. I'm questioning the sudden rash of "Rust is awesome, Go is shit" articles over the last few months. It's not a good thing.
I didn't see that anywhere in this article. Rust was just used to show an alternative approach.
"At this point in time, I deeply regret investing in Go.
Go is a Bell Labs fantasy, and not a very good one at that."