> How is that comment anything but a refusal to move on unless some magic tradeoff free solution appears? Well I (somewhat) agree with that, but my take of it

> How is that comment anything but a refusal to move on unless some magic tradeoff free solution appears? Well I (somewhat) agree with that, but my take of it was Russ is basically saying existing approaches "don't work well with Go" and "recent ideas" are "not well understood" with the concern that "there's a princess in another castle after that one I am sure." Or put it another way, per his emphasis on the "engineering" nature of Go, it is not an issue of tradeoffs, rather a concern that a runaway train of complexity will follow. Or if you will excuse my Mexican French, the problem is the fucken type system :)