I can see some kind of argument that logograms are easier to parse than an alphabet because you can communicate more information in a smaller space, but that's

I can see some kind of argument that logograms are easier to parse than an alphabet because you can communicate more information in a smaller space, but that's only true if you already committed the thousands (!) of logograms to memory in the first place. This is no trivial task! The question is if it's worth putting a 5+ year barrier in front of people in order to become fluent in a written language that maybe, possibly, might be "faster" once you are fluent. For native speakers, perhaps that's worth the effort (although there are plenty who argue otherwise). For second-language speakers, I think the answer is almost certainly no. So bringing it back to Go. Perhaps Go seems more difficult and slow to people who already invested the years required to become fluent with something like C++. I doubt that, but I guess it's possible. But Go isn't designed for that case. It's designed as a second language that any programmer can learn quickly and become reasonably productive in. If you have a company with 1000 programmers who all know different languages, and you want to start creating good software right now, would you standardize on the language that all 1000 programmers can learn in a couple of weeks, or the language that 100 programmers know inside out and the other 900 are going to spend a year figuring out?