> How on Earth people come to this conclusion?
1. Because they were first unveiled around the same time, as AOT natively-compiled languages with drastically different takes and directions.
2. Because when the authors of Go first released it, they called it a systems language. By which they meant, unlike anyone else, a language to write systems with. Like… programs.
3. Because when first unveiled, Rust was a very different language, much more similar to Go. It always had a much more functional and type-heavy bent, but it had a runtime and scheduler, userland threads, kinda-sorta a GC in potential (“GC’d pointers” though no GC was ever implemented for real). As noted in (1) it looked a bit on a completely different take on a similar niche. It was brought downstack over time as the community saw its potential as an “innovative” breath of fresh air for low-level uses: higher levels of the stack already had memory-safe and type-heavy programming languages if they wanted those.