> I swear Golang is doing so much backwards that it's starting to look intentional, like a Google-sponsored LOLCODE. I pretty much agree with this. However, I

> I swear Golang is doing so much backwards that it's starting to look intentional, like a Google-sponsored LOLCODE. I pretty much agree with this. However, I think structural types can be very useful (though as row types, not subtyping). But I think you do still need a way to specify nominal types. Something like OCaml's abstract types on top of a language with row-typed records would give you the best of both worlds.