I downvoted. "Go is not a general-purpose language" is a statement I could see myself agreeing with, so I started reading your comment excited to read a brief o

I downvoted. "Go is not a general-purpose language" is a statement I could see myself agreeing with, so I started reading your comment excited to read a brief outline of what use-cases Go is specifically aimed at and how that makes it sub-optimal for Discord's use-cases. But "it's for Google, and you aren't Google" isn't a novel perspective, doesn't leave me with new insights, and isn't really actionable for either Google or people who aren't Google. Usually this criticism is leveled at Go's dependency management story, with the implication being that it's suited to Google's monorepo but not normal people's repo habits. It's not clear to me how the criticism relates to the issues discussed in the article, which seem to be more about the runtime and GC behavior. Your comment also doesn't come off as amusing or otherwise entertaining, so it feels like you're just dunking on Go users without really aiming to make anyone's day better. Disclaimer: I use Go at work and think it's incredibly frustrating at times.