The go authors could do what they originally did with generics: only let the compiler/stdlib have macros.

Also, go users have _already_ started parsing comments for magic strings, so it's not like setting an example of using comments is stopping users from doing this crap too.

A macro language which is defined in a clear and consistent way definitely seems less magic than a macro language which has no real definition, other than examples of comments.

The language relies heavily on comments from way way back.

Yeah, it's magic, but not black magic; it's a civilized way of doing things like these.