> I really don't buy it that Go is a poor choice but that Rust isn't. If they had used C/C++, then the argument would sound more compelling.

It all boils down to Go's runtime implementation and their decisions regarding signal and threading handling.

It is because of these little things that Go isn't a fully systems language capable of replacing C and C++ for close to the hardware tasks.

For normal user space stuff sure, for kernel or low level tricks, if it requires more hand-written Assembly than C or C++ do, then it is a lost game trying to convince people to use it.

EDIT: Removed too many "level" typos