> 1) No constructors. When I create a struct, without a constructor, I can't be 100% if certain fields are populated or not. With a constructor, I could force t

> 1) No constructors. When I create a struct, without a constructor, I can't be 100% if certain fields are populated or not. With a constructor, I could force this. With a large number of people working on a code base, you can't assume anything, unfortunately, but without a constructor to force exact data in a struct, it makes it more tedious to be sure. Is there something similar to opaque types in c? Like a "constructor" function that returns an interface and then methods that operate on the interface instead of the struct itself? What I don't get about go is why certain trade offs were made, some work well for a systems language, like error codes, but then there are different trade offs that don't, like the GC. Similarly the GC makes sense for a high level apps language, but features like lacking generics don't.