I love Go, but they are not really interchangeable. If you do systems programming and you need a very low-level language, Go is not a good alternative. Though if we are talking about more high-level applications like web servers, then I totally agree.
That 90% is moot if you're trying to replace C++. Rust is a better fit than Go. Granted that Go iteration times are better. But Rust is by no means just a low level language. The abstractions in Rust are fantastic. They feel very ergonomic and high level. I think the real problem with Rust is that many people can't come to terms with the borrow checker. It's whole another skill set to know what the BC is trying to achieve, how to solve BC errors and the alternatives available when you can't. Once you know that though, Rust feels very productive - even extremely helpful in resolving problems in advance.
Believe it or not it’s possible, even desirable, to use an appropriate solution to the problem at hand, rather than treating everything as a nail just because you’re find if your hammer.
That argument is selectively and rather condescendingly applied to Rust far too often. In this particular context (both the parent comment and the article), that criticism should apply more to Go than to Rust. Besides, I don't understand the argument of asking everyone to learn a dozen different languages for an 'appropriate solution at hand' when the differences between them don't justify such effort. I don't dislike Go. But it's disingenuous to argue that Rust shouldn't be used where Go can be.
