Not sure what you mean here, but comparing Go and C negatively (even though quite unrelated) whilst praising C++ makes little sense. Even if you frame it in the way the author did that C++ has classes and C and Go doesn't, Go's lack of classes is no more primitive than any other modern lang w/out classes. And that doesn't even get into arguments on conflating OO and classes. These pro/con discussions always devolve into this mess and can be picked apart, that's why they are rarely worth having at such a high level.
> I should add that I have no interest in Crystal
I have interest in all of them.
> It’s just obvious that Go enjoys more success than it technically merits.
You said more success, the post said Google backing is what "ultimately resulted in its success". Those aren't the same thing. I doubt anyone would disagree that it helps, but I doubt anyone reasonable would agree it is the sole reason why.
It's not like D or Kotlin Native or Swift or others got a fair shake here. These just aren't good posts and I struggle to find any benefit in them.
Dart hardly had any major Google backing, it looked like a way to keep some well known VM researchers busy, which were rescued by the AdWords team before the project kind of folded.
Flutter looks like some of those developers trying to find a killer application for Dart, while being allowed some air time on Google's conferences, while Google management is full speed on Android and Web stacks.
Polymer has never about the framework, rather a way to push WebComponents as sane way to do web development, which up to HTML Templates they have been quite successful regarding adoption across browsers.
I doubt Go is only successful because of Google, but a large corporate sponsor seems to make or break most languages.
It make senses to half the users of this site. The other half, well, I guess their jobs depend on it not making sense.
I should add that I have no interest in Crystal. It’s just obvious that Go enjoys more success than it technically merits.