[kf6nux]

I don't know why a general observation and citation is getting downvoted.

Discouraged doesn't mean banned. It means avoided.

Regarding why, the article speaks to that.

You are right, in some cases, your best option will be cgo. That's fine. That's why it exists. It just shouldn't be someone's go-to anymore than goto is your go-to for flow control. Will you find circumstances for it? Sure. Do you want people to use it unnecessarily?

[_ph_]

I didn't want to claim that you should use C libraries when you don't have to. But I knew the article, and it underestimates the value of being able to use libraries which are already there. Rewriting them is often not practical or even possible.

[kf6nux]

I didn't read it that way myself.

For HN comment readers that skip citations (I'm not saying you did, just helping the conversation):

First paragraph

> cgo is an amazing technology which allows Go programs to interoperate with C libraries. It’s a tremendously useful feature without which Go would not be in the position it is today. cgo is key to ability to run Go programs on Android and iOS.

Last paragraph

> To be clear, I am not saying that you should not use cgo. But before you make that Faustian bargain, please consider carefully the qualities of Go that you’ll be giving up in return.

I don't see this as devaluing.