> but Go considers this a feature, not a bug I see this dismissive philosophy in golang a lot (I'm not saying you're doing it, mind you). The entire language i

> but Go considers this a feature, not a bug I see this dismissive philosophy in golang a lot (I'm not saying you're doing it, mind you). The entire language is full of arbitrariness. I've seen enums being dismissed by the golang team just because, without providing any meaningful arguments. Same with how nullability was not addressed in the language, contrary to how proper modern languages have tacked the issue. The excuse? "that's how the underlying machine operates". Quite meaningless and dismissive really. Time and time again, it's been shown that the goal is to have a simplistic (not simple) language that also makes it easy to write the compiler for. This breaks down at larger scales because reality is complicated.