Reading this article and the HN comments made me realize, how people want to use the same language for everything. Unfortunately, this is not possible, since each language was design with certain use cases in mind. I too, am guilty of wanting a language to do everything, to be fast, memory efficient and also easy to program in.
Perhaps our ultimate quest in terms of designing languages is to design one smart enough that can be used to program toasters and clusters alike. Until then, we might as well use the right tool for the job.
> to be fast, memory efficient and also easy to program in.
I think the issue Go detractors have is that it is none of those things, nor is there any pair of those things for which there is no better alternative than Go. If you want fast and memory efficient, you could pick C++ or C. If you want something a little easier to program in, you could pick C#, which dominates Go in all three categories. If you want to go easier to program in, there are plenty of languages like Python that are more powerful than Go.
I'd make the case for Scala for almost anything (nothing so low-level that you need to avoid GC, and I guess not command-line utilities (JVM startup time), but other than that). Haskell or OCaml could probably make a case for being suitable for just about anything. There are big advantages to using a single language in terms of code reuse, deployment tooling and so on.
Perhaps our ultimate quest in terms of designing languages is to design one smart enough that can be used to program toasters and clusters alike. Until then, we might as well use the right tool for the job.