Yes - evidently not as impressed. It's against the site guidelines to ask that btw. For example, I cannot accept that having no means to define immutable struc

Yes - evidently not as impressed. It's against the site guidelines to ask that btw. For example, I cannot accept that having no means to define immutable structures makes for an overall "simpler" programming model. What could be simpler than allowing information to be information? Whether having an additional concept makes Go more burdensome to learn and implement is another matter, and is on a different axis to Simplicity/Complexity (again, using Hickey's excellent deconstruction of simple/complex vs. easy/hard).