> the article itself is about trying to adapt Go to become fundamentally more Rust-like?
The article does not even mention Rust. Not every attempt to make something 'safer' is an attempt to make it 'fundamentally more Rust-like'. (And you're also misusing the word "fundamental" - even if we grant this is "Rust-like" this is adapting their code to make their Go programs practically more Rust-like.)
I should have said "the article itself is fundamentally about…", and not "Go to become fundamentally more…". Apologies. I've edited my comment.
Not only Rust, there is plenty of programming language design experience between 1950 and 2009, but naturally that was PhD stuff not worth taking into consideration.
Personally I think people can't help but notice the trend of Go users rediscovering bug-by-bug and frustration-by-frustration why Rust was designed the way it is.