C was the only sensible choice back then.

Uber on the other hand has many languages available yet picked Go. So they certainly don't think it is "unacceptably crippled".

There is an implicit "for my use-case" following "unacceptably crippled". So, go is not "unacceptably crippled" for the use case of creating a ton of small, simple, easily maintainable services at Uber, but it might be "unacceptably crippled" for the use case of having fun with type systems, or whatever the author was interested in at the time they were considering go as an option.

The paragraph starts with "The beauty of programming language design".

Even the most charitable interpretation would conclude it's speaking in broad terms and not just "for my use case".

Full paragraph:

> The beauty of programming language design is not building the most complex edifice like Scala or making the language unacceptably crippled like Go - but giving the programmer the ability to represent complex ideas elegantly and safely. Rust really shines in that regard.

Many teams just start with what they know and then that sets the tone. It no way means that the language is better. Amazon uses Java. Does that mean it's better than Go ? Popularity paints an incomplete picture at best.

Except that Uber started with JavaScript and Python.

Switching to Go was an educated decision. Not a continuation of what was there.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-technology-stack-behind-Ub...