[coldtea]

Magically? It would take magic for one of these models to NOT be a perfect fit for Go.

The fact that Go "has not existed for 42 years" is irrelevant -- almost all of its characteristics have been present for 3 to 5 decades, even altogether in the same language(s).

E.g. http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/

[geodel]

Seems author has added an update after 6 years:

"..Updated 2015-09-25: So, about six years later, people are still reading this. I'm not sure how to feel about this; Looking at it now, it's incoherent, badly argued, and a lot of the details are simply wrong. But 1000 hits a month indicate that people still get value out of it."

But this article link is still quite handy for random proof of Go badness.

[coldtea]

Whatever the author added, the original points still stand.

He might have changed his mind, but the facts are more stubborn.

[coldtea]

Especially since he adds "Don't get me wrong; I still think that Go is a terrible language. I now work for a company that does a lot of it, and every time I touch it it depresses me a little more".