[jmdavisProg]

I think that a lot of confusion has been caused by Go using the term "systems language," because (as I understand it) Go doesn't mean it in the same way that C++ and D do. The Go folks seem to be thinking systems in the sense of large networks of computers and the like (the kind of stuff that Google typically does), whereas the C++ and D folks are thinking systems in terms of stuff like operating systems. What Go is trying to do does not necessarily require low-level primitives (though it can benefit from them), whereas what C++ and D are trying to do does require such primitives.

[he_the_great]

The problem is by deciding that they can use "systems language" (which they dropped) because "system" means "a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole" results in every language falling under "systems language."

Others have been using it to distinguish languages suitable for writing operating systems/drivers years before Go introduced this confusion.

[jdhzzz]

When I hear "systems programmer" I think computer-to-computer. Therefore when I hear "systems language" I think computer-to-computer even absent Go's use of the term. I not be disappointed if a systems language were not appropriate for creating operating systems.