If there's anything I'd draw the most attention to from this, it'd be the conclusion: "If your program is small and can mostly be described by what it does...

If there's anything I'd draw the most attention to from this, it'd be the conclusion: "If your program is small and can mostly be described by what it does... then Go is fine. If it’s large, if it has non-trivial data structures... or if it will be dealing with a lot of data from the outside, then the type system will fight you for no benefit and you’re better off using a different static language (where the type system helps) or a dynamic language (where it doesn’t get in your way)." That's a much better way to express my sense after almost a year of working with it that I'd ended up with a Pascal-like subset of Java with most of the liabilities of the former. And I wanted to like it going in ("hey, some people love it, and it's more or less Gosling's statement about Java w/o classes come to life!").