There are a number of other important issues driving language adoption which were not mentioned in the article from the quality of the tooling and documentation

There are a number of other important issues driving language adoption which were not mentioned in the article from the quality of the tooling and documentation to existing code bases (and consequently the quality of FFI). I'm also surprised python didn't get a mention given that this is where a large number of new Go programmers come from. As for the languages themselves, I was very happy when Go came out and I've been using it for the last two years. I generally loud the conservative approach to language features that Go took, but I fear they've overdone it. One feature missing from Go which is mentioned at every such occasion (and with a good reason) is generics. Their value to the programmer would be even higher in Go than in other languages, since a lot of existing concurrent code could be written in a generic way and reused regardless of what needs to be put in the channels. There are also a few minor annoyances like lots of boiler plate (e.g. overly verbose for loops), nil pointer, no algebraic data types, select statement vs reflect.Select(), range keyword (off-limits to your own data structures). I've got high hopes for Rust.