Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang
The author writes well and makes compelling points. His "I want to get off Mr Golang's Wild Ride" post is good too.But I don't find myself agreeing with his position, which is "you shouldn't use Go for production services" (he explicitly says this in one of his Go posts, I forget which one and don't have time to look right now).The better alternative to Go is Rust. Okay, sure, I'm willing to admit that in the examples presented, Rust handles things better. But Rust isn't a panacea. Rust is complicated and hard, and often it's not worth taking on that burden just to theoretically handle cases that rarely occur and even more rarely cause any problem. Programming is a means to an end, and the cost of using Rust (hiring, increased development time) is often not worth it.The reason Go is successful is because it's easy for companies to use to solve production problems with teams of varying expertise. Its stdlib is well-featured, its ecosystem is good. There's generally one correct way of doing things. The same doesn't appear true in Rust. For example, an _incredibly_ common thing to do in production code is to make a web request. In Go, there is no need for debate, you use the stdlib. In Rust, you have to use a crate, which requires a decision to be made. Even worse is the async story, in Rust you have to decide whether to use Tokio or whatever. That burden is just not present with Go.Btw this article should not be flagged and it's pathetic that people have flagged it.