There's always been blogs complaining about Go and the generics issue raised in this blog is something that crops up in every discussion about Go.
The problem with heavily hyped languages is that some people jump on the bandwagon without really thinking about the problem they're having. And this is exactly what the author of this article seems to be doing. If you're having to convince your clients to maintain a project in a language neither of you have developed in and you guys already have experience in other languages, then the question should be "what will I gain from switching to Go". The author's justification seemed to be "It's hyped online" rather than any technical justification; and that strikes me as a poor decision from the start.
What?! I you might want to reread the article and then read the author's comments here and his other Go articles.
The author clearly knew about Go's lack of generics and was quite familiar with the language. After stepping away from the language for a while he decided to give it another try in a project where he thought the lack of generics could easily be worked around via Go idioms. He found out that the lack of generics _did_ hurt more than expected and wrote about that part in a way that projected his frustration.
The problem with heavily hyped languages is that some people jump on the bandwagon without really thinking about the problem they're having. And this is exactly what the author of this article seems to be doing. If you're having to convince your clients to maintain a project in a language neither of you have developed in and you guys already have experience in other languages, then the question should be "what will I gain from switching to Go". The author's justification seemed to be "It's hyped online" rather than any technical justification; and that strikes me as a poor decision from the start.