> the article itself is about trying to adapt Go to become fundamentally more Rust-like? The article does not even mention Rust. Not every attempt to make some

> the article itself is about trying to adapt Go to become fundamentally more Rust-like? The article does not even mention Rust. Not every attempt to make something 'safer' is an attempt to make it 'fundamentally more Rust-like'. (And you're also misusing the word "fundamental" - even if we grant this is "Rust-like" this is adapting their code to make their Go programs practically more Rust-like.)