Author states: "I was contracted to port a large Java code base to Go". That makes me think his focus is on earning the money, rather than questioning the motives of his client :)
The fact that he tried to port a lot of the Java code directly to Go, where Go had no suitable comparable feature. With generics, he mentions there are two different approaches in Go, but then only mention the one he calls the least preferred one, i.e. using interface{}.
But he never talks about motivation of the original code. Like why it was generic in Java. Sometimes generic code in other languages can be ported to Go to two or three functions, because the general use of the generic code wasn't as generic as the designer may have envisioned, or it just became a nail to their hammer.
Like was the inheritance really important, or could it be implemented another way in Go?
But I guess if you're not questioning your client's motives, you may not be fully questioning how something ought to work, and instead just ensure it works as it does right now.
It's possible they just needed a Go-library for their client code, and then the client code can be tweaked later on to be more idiomatic Go.
