Really? I find it hard to believe you can't tell what is intended. It certainly is applicable to the article, as the article can be summarized as "I've moved up a language on the blub line, and now my old perfect language is clearly inferior, but my new blub is perfection incarnate".
> One of the things I like about Go is that it offers much better ways to write things that you’d usually write with callbacks.
I fail to see how saying that one likes replacing callbacks with channels translates to saying Go is "perfection incarnate".
Go isn't perfect, but they hit a really good subset of features that a lot of people find very productive. I, and many others that use go, find that pragmatism worth the tradeoff.
Go makes what my co-workers and I do easier than other languages we've tried. Period. That's why we're using it. That's the reason other's I've communicated with have given as well. It's not a magical unicorn, it's not going to impress PL theorists; it's going to get work done.
The lack of generics, or parametric polymorphism, or immutable data structures, or LINQ syntax, pattern matching, etc., isn't keeping us from shipping code.
It isn't. It is saying "I don't realize that this is actually worse than what lots of languages provided before go even existed, so I think it is awesome". Which is the point of the blub response. Go isn't interesting, it is blub.