[nickolai]

>The title only suggests something unique about Go to those who didn't read the article.

The thing is, many people use the title to determine whether the article is worth reading. As is, the title suggests that there is something unique about Go that reduces the bandwidth needed by the program, implying that this is something that other common languages fail to achieve. This is obviously impossible (any widely used language is capable of serializing an output byte stream in any way the programmer desires). As a result, the title sets off the alarm for "Language fanboyism", and "mathematically impossible claims", and goes swiftly into the "don't bother" pile together with "universal lossless compression algorithm invented!"[1], "perpetual motion machine" and "My favourite X language is faster that C/C++/Assembler!1!1"

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle

[laumars]

> The thing is, many people use the title to determine whether the article is worth reading.

That same argument could be used for having the language in the title as people who are not interested in programming are going to be less interested in a thread about programming.

And language fanboyism is going to happen with or without this title (given the content of the article). What's happening here is more a case of lazy members wanting to commentate on articles they've not even read. It's basically the lowest form of blogging.