This article's comments on code generation and generics are a good exposition of what I don't like about Go: it seems internally inconsistent, as though there i

This article's comments on code generation and generics are a good exposition of what I don't like about Go: it seems internally inconsistent, as though there is one set of features for the Go development team, and a lesser set for everyone else. The nice thing about Haskell and the Lisps is that they are consistently the same thing all the way down through every layer of abstraction, even at the bottom. There is no point where you reach the "magic" or "forbidden" layer where the paradigm changes and it turns into a different language. The problem with Go is that the code we programmers get to write feels like a DSL on top of the "real" Go, which uses constructs and "magic" we aren't allowed to take advantage of.