> I don't do much systems programming, but mean to do more, and I'm a little disappointed that what I thought was a good approach at a systems language (golang)

> I don't do much systems programming, but mean to do more, and I'm a little disappointed that what I thought was a good approach at a systems language (golang) is met with such derision by him… His golang article was aimed at the low-level compiler implementation, not at the language itself. In particular, he thought that gccgo was the right way to implement the language since it builds on top of existing infrastructure and doesn't try to reinvent it (poorly, in his opinion).