> Share memory by communicating, don't communicate by sharing memory.
I suspect the parent was referring to the fact that Go just has this as a convention, there's no static guarantee that the programmer gets it right and it is undefined behaviour if they don't (fortunately the race detector exists). Interestingly, Rust does provide guarantees about this sort of concurrency patterns, allowing one to get stronger control around sharing using Go/CSP-like channels.
Yes, but saying it doesn't have a concurrency model cause it's missing a feature that's arguably irrelevant to the concurrency model that's recommended by the language is pointless, and seemingly serves no other reason then to attack the language.
Having some "feature" that means the concurrency model is sound (aka without undefined behaviour) isn't irrelevant to concurrency models. (I quoted feature because there's a variety of different ways to get this guarantee, some of which don't feel like language features, per se.)
On the other hand, it's fair that the convention/tooling is usually good enough; this is a stronger argument and probably a better one to be making than a dubious one about being irrelevant.
I suspect the parent was referring to the fact that Go just has this as a convention, there's no static guarantee that the programmer gets it right and it is undefined behaviour if they don't (fortunately the race detector exists). Interestingly, Rust does provide guarantees about this sort of concurrency patterns, allowing one to get stronger control around sharing using Go/CSP-like channels.