It's backwards. Attributing things to Go's success vs. attributing Go's success to things. Things someone attributes to Go's success would be things caused by

It's backwards. Attributing things to Go's success vs. attributing Go's success to things. Things someone attributes to Go's success would be things caused by Go's success. For example, the proliferation of stuff written in Go, the number of people making money as Go experts, the appearance of a Go entry in Wikipedia. Things to which someone attributes Go's success (i.e. so-and-so attributes Go's success to these things) would be things that caused Go's success - such as the things in the article. Headline could've been done correctly, but perhaps the problems started with digesting something by Rob Pike and turning it into a listicle. Which then has to have both its listicleness ("five things") and the presence of Rob Pike, advertised in the headline. But I might be being cynical.