> This might be a basis on which to prioritize criticism Maybe if the language was unsuccessful then yes. But given the popularity in f Go it's fair to say the

> This might be a basis on which to prioritize criticism Maybe if the language was unsuccessful then yes. But given the popularity in f Go it's fair to say the concerns of its existing user base should take precedence over those that may not use the language regardless. > certainly the criticisms of those who use a language are more important to those managing it than the complaints of those who don't use it -- but it's not a reasonable basis on which to disqualify criticism. But as this topic has demonstrated, those concerns haven't been disqualified out if hand either. > And to point a criticism back: sometimes it feels like some of Go's loudest defenders don't choose to offer the discussion much beyond that response ("you're not really using it because if you were you'd see that the pain point you're describing is imaginary or not that bad or has plans to make plans to be fixed"). I disagree that happens. In my first post I made the arguement about language stability (not breaking things). Others have made the arguement of simplicity and/or readability as well. I think the real issue is some people don't consider those good enough reasons so dismiss the counterarguments out if hand. Which is obviously an opinion you're entitled to but you have to remember that it's the stability and simplicity that has made Go popular in the first place so those points actually do matter to a great many of us. The thing is, there is already C#, Java, Rust, C++, and a great many other languages out there that have rich ecosystems and expressive semantics, Go has gone in a different direction by being a boring language. This direction clearly divides people though.