[tialaramex]

It's interesting that the 2010 article you linked suggests they might consider improving this but nope, Go 1.0 and the Go people use today just basically takes the same attitude as C and C++ albeit with a small nuance.

In C and C++ SC/DRF (Sequentially Consistent if Data Race Free) turns into "All data races are Undefined Behaviour, game over, you lose". In Go SC/DRF turns into "All data races on complex types are Undefined Behaviour, game over, you lose". If you race e.g. a simple integer counter, it's damaged and you ought not to use it because it might be anything now, but Go isn't reduced to Undefined Behaviour immediately for this seemingly trivial mishap (whereas C and C++ are)

[yencabulator]

Go doesn't go out of its way to make weird things happen on UB like C compilers these days tend to, but once you corrupt the map data structure, weird things can happen. Trying to contain that explosion isn't necessarily "better", as it would make maps slower / take up more memory / etc.

[masklinn]

> Go doesn't go out of its way to make weird things happen on UB like C compilers these days tend to

The reasons C compilers “tend to go out of their way to make weird things happen” is they optimise extremely aggressively, and optimisations are predicated upon the code being valid (not having UBs).

Go barely optimises at all, and does not have that many UBs which could send the optimiser in a frenzy.