Yes, but that's a red herring. Outside maybe of the JavaScript world, the available tooling isn't divided into immature and near legacy. Haskell itself is a good example of a mature language still growing in popularity.
All I'm saying is that it's unfair to discredit the argument that Haskell has been around for 25 years, hence its had more time to evolve a more complete tooling offering. It is a valid argument.
If Haskell didn't exist and had only been launched a few years ago alongside Go, what would the status of its tooling be today? That would be a fairer comparison.
Obviously one can't measure it objectively, but you do have a comparable case with Elixir, I believe. And it's clear that Go surpasses Elixir in traction.
So let's not discredit the merits of Go in such a long time. It definitely has more happening for it now than Haskell or Elixir.
This is sounding like a golang version of "Leave Britney Alone".
The author wasn't accusing the creators of Go of being incompetents and unable to produce good tools. All was said is that currently, the tooling is not as good as Haskell's. That Go is a newer language is not a valid argument for rebutting that claim - it's only an explanation for it.
