> I find your characterization of critica of Go, highly uncharitable, but unfortunately all too common with Go apologetics. I might suggest that if you're the

> I find your characterization of critica of Go, highly uncharitable, but unfortunately all too common with Go apologetics. I might suggest that if you're the type to use the phrase "Go apologetics", you misinterpreted my post and also emit uncharitable feedback quite often :) > If we look outside of Go, I see a lot of criticism of C++, Java, PHP and Node.js, but I rarely see the critics being attacked with "You just didn't write enough C++ code" to qualify for a critic license. I find this approach hypocritical. If you scroll up, you'll find my request was simply to include the level of involvement a programmer has with a given language as part of their critique. Critique away! But as with all things, when novices critique things they don't understand, they're mostly just being negative for negativity's sake. Go into a C++ space and include "I've never written C++", followed by any criticism and let me know how serious your criticisms are taken. I can wait :) > Due to lack of genrics and other limitations of the language, Go essentially forces you to use empty intrrfaces, stringly-typed data, weak enums and runtime type checks all over the place. This leads to fragile code, and makes it very hard to have the same safety guarantees you could have in Java - let alone in a more FP-oriented language like Rust or Haskell. We can disagree - the purpose of my post was not to prove Go was a "good" language or not. These bits of feedback sound like you're following antipatterns, but you're welcome to program in Go however you'd like.