I think this post is linkbait. The author's title is "Golang is trash," but the post doesn't discuss anything about Golang. Golang is a programming language,

I think this post is linkbait. The author's title is "Golang is trash," but the post doesn't discuss anything about Golang. Golang is a programming language, and the author admits that he has "no real opinion on the language itself" (his words). This blog post discusses some pretty esoteric details about a particular toolchain, which is not even the only production-ready toolchain available for Golang at the moment, as the author freely acknowledges. If there were a blog post titled "Lisp is trash," that proceeded to talk about obscure implementation details of a certain version of CMUCL, I think it would be flagkilled-- and this should be too. I also feel like there are some factual errors. He chides the Go developers for "arrogantly ignoring" existing tools for linking code. But the gccgo integration was done by Ian Lance Taylor, who is on the Go team at Google. I believe Rob Pike is on record as saying that he wanted multiple implementations of Go to increase the robustness of the language. I would appreciate a good critical look at the Golang runtime and toolchain. How does its performance stack up, how fast does it compile, etc. But this ain't it. This is a guy complaining that he doesn't like the naming of registers in machine-generated binary files. I will literally never need to care about any of this. I don't even need to know this to make use of assembly language in my Go programs, since I can use the C library integration for that.