There's a running joke in the Erlang community that every Erlang programmer will at some point try and re-implement Supervisors and do it horribly wrong. This isn't because the person is a bad programmer, it's just easy to underestimate the amount of time and incredible programming that has gone into Erlang's supervisors.
By sticking with Go, the author gets to keep the static types but likely gets faux-Supervisors at best.
I describe exactly what I get. Whether they're "faux" depends on your definition.
No, seriously, that's really profoundly true. Erlang's definition isn't the only one. But you're free to take it. If you can bend a bit, though, these may not be "faux".
One thing that's easier when it comes to implementing supervisors in not-Erlang though is that the vast majority of languages have something better than "behaviors" to work with, which are bizarrely klunky things. I actually implemented something more like a "gen_server" initially, but it wasn't a win. Some of that "incredible programming" is essential complexity (in Fred Brooks' terminology), but some of it is accidental complexity. Plus Erlang had to build it from true, total scratch; Go is a pre-existing runtime, and "defer" is simple, yet powerful.
Did you try to implement your own behaviours? Or processes that aren't behaviours as such but still function correctly in supervision trees and in applications?
What I found is that if you implement Serve() and Stop(), honestly, you're done, in the world of Go. If you want a state machine, just write it. Many of the things I'm supervising are goroutines that wrap an API around a channel that implements a server.
By sticking with Go, the author gets to keep the static types but likely gets faux-Supervisors at best.