[jfe]

Performing archaeology on 4-year-old code is vaguely like smelling your own farts. I have a certain reverence for Thompson, Pike, and the rest of the old Bell Labs team, but I've sensed a tacit holier-than-thou attitude from the Go project since its inception.

These people, and this language, are not infallible. They might claim to be objective scientists, but they have a particular world-view. After all, Go is just an unimaginative Algol derivative with concurrency primitives that are high-level relative only to C/C++, and Plan 9 is just a better UNIX.

In science, it's unbecoming to fawn over creative people. Even more so over people who haven't produced a truly new idea in decades.

[djhworld]

The code in question is actually 9 years old and I wouldn't exactly call the article fawning over brilliance, in fact the author discusses the fact that a lot of things changed in the language over time and the code itself is quite clumsy and has workarounds for things that were unimplemented.