Quite a few things.

The Go version was written by a person enthusiastic and presumably competent in Go. See their perspective here where he concedes defeat on the performance front: http://blog.nella.org/mqtt-code-golf/

Adding C as a baseline is entirely appropriate.

The source code for C, Go, and D is available. The Erlang version may or may not at the discretion of its author.

Probably a more sensible hypothesis is that you like Go and saw a result that is unfavorable to it, so you had an emotional response.

> As usual, Go programs compare quite favorably to C programs in terms of memory safety...

That's not saying much :)

Source links for everything but the Erlang version are there at the end of the article.

yes, indeed you did. he did not wrote the erlang implementation but a colleague of him did.

Also there are bugs in my Go-version test, I know about them but I hate Go so, pfff, who cares.

The Go version has been written by a Go fan.

And what it changes? If code contain bugs, only full noob will use results for benchmarking.