The article is not very good, as some of the points made are just wrong ( the whole part about VMs for example). It seems that this is just the result of a short internet search without much in the way of understanding.
I guess it is notes from someone without a great deal of experience with the language, so in that sense it is useful, but I agree it could do with a lot more depth, in particular if the author had built something significant in Go before writing it would help. I'm not sure it aspires to the level of an in-depth language critique though, it's more a light gloss on the language from the point of view of a beginner.
Re VMs, yes I'm not sure what that section is about, I guess they took the fact it doesn't use a VM then ran with that, but came to the wrong conclusions, as a quick comparison of Java programs with Go programs would tell them.
It's interesting that many of the cons can actually be considered pros if seen in the right light, for example 'too simplistic' is not how I see go, at all, it is certainly radically simple in that it jettisons a lot of features deliberately as they are harmful (foremost among them inheritance, which I think was the right call), but it also misses out things which are seen as features in some other languages (like generics or tail calls). I would like to see them tidy it up for Go 2 though, and make it simpler, rather than more complex. Simplistic is not the right word for the deliberate simplicity of Go IMO.
The article is not very good, as some of the points made are just wrong ( the whole part about VMs for example). It seems that this is just the result of a short internet search without much in the way of understanding.