> I've always understood this claim as a particular (rather restricted) interpretation of "systems" code This is basically the retcon that the golang community

> I've always understood this claim as a particular (rather restricted) interpretation of "systems" code This is basically the retcon that the golang community has settled on but it's frankly not true. When go was originally being promoted it was heavily advertised as a systems language suitable for writing low-level programs. Nowhere was it caveated that "systems language" means something different from what everyone understood a "systems language" to be at the time. Only when it more or less failed to gain traction in that space did this get redefined to mean "network servers that mostly just shuffle bytes around and CLI applications".