I feel like this article misinterprets at least one of the points made by the articles it cites. There's a bit in here that roughly goes: "the filesystem api is

I feel like this article misinterprets at least one of the points made by the articles it cites. There's a bit in here that roughly goes: "the filesystem api is geared towards Unix and doesn't work that well for windows, but that's ok, because it's designed for servers which run Unix". And that's perfectly valid, and I agree with this 100%, but it misses the broader point that's being made in the "I want to get off Mr golang's wild ride" post. The problem that the wild ride post has is not that the filesystem api doesn't work for windows. It just uses it to illustrate a broader point: golang opts for silent failures (for example by just making up file permission bits for a file on windows), and just chugging along pretending everything is fine when it's not. This design choice goes well beyond the filesystem api. Now, whether I think that's a fair criticism or not is beside the point. All I'm saying is that this post is not a valid response to the criticism illustrated by comparing Rust's filesystem api to that of Go.