> I think there are programmers who have studied and trained in concepts, techniques and idioms and those who haven't Which is really just talking in circles,

> I think there are programmers who have studied and trained in concepts, techniques and idioms and those who haven't Which is really just talking in circles, because as I've now said in three consecutive comments, I have quite extensive experience with functional programming, and so I'm rejecting the argument that Go is simply for people who don't have that experience. > And in fact, I also don't see how you can derive a criticism of academia out of those quotes when they mention 'researchers' only in passing, as a point of comparison to talk about their coders' skill level. It's probably because, in five years of writing the language, I've had the opportunity to hear Pike (and others) talk about the topic. So when I'm responding, I'm drawing on that body of knowledge to inform what I'm saying, rather than limiting myself to a single quotation cited on a blog post written by someone who (by his own admission) is very new to the language.