>So building production software is stated as 3rd most important goal. Ehrm, no? It is to be taken with no implicit meaning on ordering, i.e. teaching == resea

>So building production software is stated as 3rd most important goal. Ehrm, no? It is to be taken with no implicit meaning on ordering, i.e. teaching == research == applications, more or less. All of these priorities are weighed in when there are talks in the community about removing or adding features. Haskell is a lot better for writing _reliable_ software. It just has a higher barrier to entry, if you come from an imperative background (not much if it's your first language). >Unlike Haskell, Go wasn't designed for teaching. It wasn't designed for research. Several times I've heard mentioned that the strength of Go was the simplicity and on boarding new developers, along with them not getting confused about what code means. I'll agree it certainly wasn't designed for research though, since it seems to want to ignore the progress in CS over the last 20 years. Haskell is very serious about stability, they don't just add or drop features without a long deprecation cycle. Most experimental things are language extensions, which are entirely opt-in. The main problem Haskell has had for adoption (IMHO) was the lack of good _pedagogical_ material that would hold the users hand and teach them the concepts of the language - there have been superb efforts into fixing this in recent years such as with the Haskell Book etc.