Honestly, not at this point of HN. I don't think there was one thread that mentioned (or didn't mention) anything about Go which didn't have comments criticizing it.

Everyone knows its problems, and everyone knows about Rust.

It's just that some people don't need such extreme Real Time that they can't afford GC at the expense of the borrow-checker and lifetimes.

> Everyone knows its problems, and everyone knows about Rust.

I guess they've at least heard of it, yeah, but how many of them have actually tried Rust (or any other language with a modern type system)?

> It's just that some people don't need such extreme Real Time that they can't afford GC at the expense of the borrow-checker and lifetimes.

They should probably be using Java, C#, Scala, ML, F#, Haskell, etc. then.

I have tried Rust, Go, Java, SML, Lisp, Javascript, and many other languages. I prefer Go in many situations where simplicity, speed of compilation, and portability are important. Rust is an interesting language with a lot of potential but the jury is still out on how wide the adoption will be. There is a steep learning curve, and the borrow checker has limitations.

One thing I don't appreciate is being lectured by pimply-faced nerds about how Go programmers should embrace Java/C++ generics into their heart as their personal saviors. I understand what Java and C++ are, I can choose to use them or not, and it's none of your business.

Gee, it's almost like Rust and Go address different problem spaces ...

Hmmm... perhaps Rust programmers are legitimately unaware that other people's problems differ from their own?