> When you have to get it done When you have to get what done? Seriously. There are different reasons to pick different technology stacks, some of them because

> When you have to get it done When you have to get what done? Seriously. There are different reasons to pick different technology stacks, some of them because of language features, some of them because of technology stack. Getting it done at my current job is generally Java, b/c that's the tech stack used by most. > The Go guys knew when to stop. Arguably they stopped too early... The stuff you mention Go not having is exactly what Rust brings over Go, is it not? > But that doesn't seem to be a big overhead item. I disagree, it's the fundamental reason I don't use Go by choice, and instead turn to languages that allow for more expressiveness. > Rust has the complexity of C++ You say you like Rust, but I find this statement hard to believe if you've learned the language. It has almost none of the complexity of C++. That's not to say that the language isn't more complex than Go, it is. But to say it's anywhere near C++ feels disingenuous. The Rust RFC process is very good IMO at preventing inappropriate changes from being introduced into the language, "Winchester Mystery House language" is unnecessary FUD. Look, you don't have to like the language. But, making statements that seem unfounded isn't really appropriate.