I don’t think this rant is toxic - there’s no personal attacks or rude words of any sort, and the tone is lighthearted - but it is all criticism. Maybe that’s enough to qualify it as toxic.
I presume working on the above software burned some deep scars. Their switch from Go to Rust is motivated by this kind of issue.
(To be honest, I also stopped writing Go for fun because these kinds of paper cuts build up. I enjoy Go when writing stuff in its sweet spot - dealing mostly with network bytes in a server environment of my choosing. For me, venturing too far out of that domain is joyless, but not exactly painful.)
I don't think this article intends to give a full appraisal of Go. It highlights the downsides of a particular philosophical stance Go takes.
That stance is very much real, even if it's best described by gesturing at half a dozen examples. And it's nothing new, really. It's just Worse is Better all over again. I think it's instructive to see how it plays out in Go.
This rant is one-sided, but it doesn't pretend to be otherwise.
However, the author has real Go bonafides, he wrote many of these libraries: https://github.com/itchio?q=&type=all&language=go&sort=
I presume working on the above software burned some deep scars. Their switch from Go to Rust is motivated by this kind of issue.
(To be honest, I also stopped writing Go for fun because these kinds of paper cuts build up. I enjoy Go when writing stuff in its sweet spot - dealing mostly with network bytes in a server environment of my choosing. For me, venturing too far out of that domain is joyless, but not exactly painful.)