It’s one sided when it points out the pitfalls without bothering to describe why they’re there, and what the upside is. There are sloppy mistakes in Go, just like in anything, but many of the common criticisms of go are about trade offs not about mistakes.
Sure, but the way I read the article, that's what the author shows. They don't like trade-offs that are made.
Maybe the tone of the article feels a little aggressive towards Go, I don't know. To me it felt more like an outcry of frustration with the chosen trade-offs.
