> The real problem is Go basically doesn't have a type system. I don’t understand what “basically” means in this context. If you mean to say that Go’s type sys

> The real problem is Go basically doesn't have a type system. I don’t understand what “basically” means in this context. If you mean to say that Go’s type system isn’t formally sound, I think it would be better to argue that than to argue that it essentially has “no type system”. That strikes me as a very weird thing to say in general.