Of course you are correct, but that is not exactly what Golang.org has done. I believe errors have been made on both end of this story.
Please consider this:
a version 1.0 of an open source project X has been released by a team that actively engages its user community. Release manager indicated before release (in issue tracker) that a special problem with platform P is not making the cut. It is true he didn't tweet it /g but it was a public announcement.
Developer D has decided to use X1.0 to create a software product for paying customer C on said platform P on a tight production go live deadline. Apparently there were issues in his deployment testing regiment, as his initial tests were apparently satisfactory, and he typed a ton of code, and now he is busy retyping the same in C as something went boom with X 1.0 on platform P.
IMO, it is not thoughtful to spec 1.0 software for your paying clients unless you know what you are doing and have land mine detectors and have reviewed field maps. (An example of folks fitting the requirement are Heroku -- they use Go in production.)
IMO, stories like this will (a) stem the rush of those who compulsively (but superficially) seek 'the new' and then blog about their own misunderstandings; and likely keep thoughtful hackers who like to dig deep (and will avail themselves of the public resources and available channels) and make their own determination. And these hackers will build great software on Go and that will attract more developers.
There is no real reason for Go to seek a footprint via "PR". PR for languages is for those who need users for their language's survial. Sun (RIP) didn't really need Java, did it? They had to push Java to gain users. Go has Google for its deployment foot print (as a client of sorts); is already an option in the cloud.
Go has a solid team of engineers [1] behind it. It is definitely not a flavor of the month language and would not benefit from a flavor of the month community.
Please consider this:
a version 1.0 of an open source project X has been released by a team that actively engages its user community. Release manager indicated before release (in issue tracker) that a special problem with platform P is not making the cut. It is true he didn't tweet it /g but it was a public announcement.
Developer D has decided to use X1.0 to create a software product for paying customer C on said platform P on a tight production go live deadline. Apparently there were issues in his deployment testing regiment, as his initial tests were apparently satisfactory, and he typed a ton of code, and now he is busy retyping the same in C as something went boom with X 1.0 on platform P.
IMO, it is not thoughtful to spec 1.0 software for your paying clients unless you know what you are doing and have land mine detectors and have reviewed field maps. (An example of folks fitting the requirement are Heroku -- they use Go in production.)
IMO, stories like this will (a) stem the rush of those who compulsively (but superficially) seek 'the new' and then blog about their own misunderstandings; and likely keep thoughtful hackers who like to dig deep (and will avail themselves of the public resources and available channels) and make their own determination. And these hackers will build great software on Go and that will attract more developers.
There is no real reason for Go to seek a footprint via "PR". PR for languages is for those who need users for their language's survial. Sun (RIP) didn't really need Java, did it? They had to push Java to gain users. Go has Google for its deployment foot print (as a client of sorts); is already an option in the cloud.
Go has a solid team of engineers [1] behind it. It is definitely not a flavor of the month language and would not benefit from a flavor of the month community.
All opinions, of course!
[1]: for a sample of both: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxaD_trXwRE