I think to properly write a language comparison, you need to have extensively used both languages and with multiple use cases.
For example:
I've recently attempted writing a small service in Go and it only took a few hours for me to figure out how weak a language could be without some sort of type-abstraction or generics: I had to implement a FindValueInArray() twice for two different types. This should be a big issue in any respectable language. (I mostly like Go otherwise though!)
True, but you can assess how approachable a language is by simply approaching it. This is useful information. You could even argue that experience would disqualify you from reviewing using that angle!
hm.. but why would anyone want to read how approachable Go is for beginners on HN? Do all negative experiences disqualify anyone from publishing a comparison? which negative experiences qualify?
I'm confused by your comment. Does it take extensive experience and multiple use cases to assess a language? Or a couple hours writing a small service?
The former. I'm not arguing that I have extensive experience or had multiple use cases (I had neither), but I am saying these very serious issues started to pop up just a couple of hours in. I'm surprised there is nothing here about these seemingly oft-occurring issues in this article, and makes me feel like the author hasn't used the language enough (again, not that I have).
For example: I've recently attempted writing a small service in Go and it only took a few hours for me to figure out how weak a language could be without some sort of type-abstraction or generics: I had to implement a FindValueInArray() twice for two different types. This should be a big issue in any respectable language. (I mostly like Go otherwise though!)