I agree to some extent; different languages require different coding styles – that's totally fine. But that doesn't mean that there aren't valuable features to

I agree to some extent; different languages require different coding styles – that's totally fine. But that doesn't mean that there aren't valuable features to be taken from other languages, nor that they the language's design doesn't have problems. I strongly feel we should resist the temptation to believe that just because an idiomatic design design exists means there is no room for the language to become even better! I won't harp on about generics in Go, because I think it's far from the biggest issue – but the hardcoded magic generics show that such a feature is useful. I'd love a simple set implementation, for example – but I often find myself reduced to writing dumb, ugly, difficult-to-read code to work around the fact that it's not possible. SICP famously says "programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." And I can't help but feel, whenever I'm writing Go, that I'm spending far too much time telling the computer what to do – and nowhere near enough telling future developers what I wanted to do.