Pike later expressed regret about using the term "systems programming" so loosely. I believe it was during this panel discussion:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/events/lang-next-2014/pane...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/events/lang-next-2014/pane...
- TinyGo (https://tinygo.org/), which is acknowledged by people in the industry[0][1]
- TamaGo unikernel on USB Armory secure key (https://www.withsecure.com/de/solutions/innovative-security-...)
And then there is the question if writing compilers, assemblers, linkers is systems programming or not.
[0]-https://www.cnx-software.com/2019/08/28/tinygo-go-compiler-f...
[1]-https://twitter.com/ArmSoftwareDev/status/131680481331796787...
Just because you can provide some niche examples where Go is used as a systems programming language doesn't mean it is a general purpose systems programming language.
Putting Go in the same category as C/C++/Rust/Zig is ridiculous.
Ridiculous is being a gatekeeper lacking imagination.
Thankfully for mankind's progress they tend to be a minority, even though they sometimes get into the way.
Yes, it is gatekeeping, back in the 8 and 16 bit home computer days, or even before during the computer revolution, it was anything that could help to develop the whole stack.
From the gatekeepers point of view, Xerox PARC never did any systems programming.
Like I said, I think the main issue here is terminology, but you brushed that aside. From a cursory glance, Xerox PARC definitely did low-level programming so I'm not sure what "the gatekeepers point of view" is supposed to mean.
What is low-level?
Coding in C back in the 8 and 16 bit home computer days when C was useless without piles of compiler extensions beyond K&R C, requiring either inline Assembly or an external Assembler, and even BASIC provided better primitives for hardware access?