Replace "Go" with "PHP" and ask yourself if such a claim is a strong validation of a technology...'
Yes, a lot of people have gone to production with crappy technologies, this is meaningless. The real question is: could they have done it more easily using a better technology?
Replace "Go" with "PHP" and ask yourself if such a claim is a strong validation of a technology...'
As a programmer using Go, I think the comparison is spot on -- if you credit Go for having a much cleaner architecture, vastly better design around security, and profoundly well thought out trade offs.
With some work on libraries and tooling, Go could well become the basis of the next PHP, and become the tool of choice for small web projects. If this happened, the world would be a better (in terms of software-sanity, performance, and security) place.
> Yes, a lot of people have gone to production with crappy technologies, this is meaningless.
I don't think that's meaningless. I take it to mean that your (our, my) valuation of technologies does not hold the relative importance (or correctness) that it's perceived to hold.
Yes, a lot of people have gone to production with crappy technologies, this is meaningless. The real question is: could they have done it more easily using a better technology?