[tux1968]

The article mentions a keynote speech by Rob Pike* from 2012 which is quite illuminating. The trade-offs made were all centered around google-scale and the pain points of such a massive operation. It stands to reason that people working outside of that environment may be less pleased with the language.

[*] https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Go-Google

[20yrs_no_equity]

Google is not the only entity that operates at scale, and simply because google does it does not mean it is the correct choice. That's kinda cargo cultish.

In distributed systems, go is fragile and dangerous -- because it will panic. IT has no supervision system, and it has the potential for deadlocks, in fact, unless you engineer around it, all coroutines and channels will produce deadlocks and can silently kill your program. When that happens you have no idea why things are broken-- nothings happening.

And this is a language without a decent debugger!

[lossolo]

> In distributed systems, go is fragile and dangerous -- because it will panic.

Do you know when it will panic? Do you know you can recover from panic if you for example want to communicate with other systems that this node is going offline?

> it has the potential for deadlocks

I could write that for most of languages that have mutexes. This is design problem, not language problem.

> When that happens you have no idea why things are broken-- nothings happening.

It's only true if you do not know how to use debugger and don't know how language features you use works.

[SZJX]

tbh I don't think workers even inside of that environment will be much pleased either. The managers are likely pleased because it speeds up the organizational efficiency, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the happiness of the developers who actually write code and have to bear its many unpleasantness. That's just two separate things.