Well, those critiques are not unfounded. The designers of Go are certainly not ignorant of the last few decades of PL research, but they did make a deliberate d

Well, those critiques are not unfounded. The designers of Go are certainly not ignorant of the last few decades of PL research, but they did make a deliberate decision to ignore it and create (they admit!) an inferior language for skilled practitioners, in the interest of being maximally accessible to newer programmers who are only familiar with imperative languages with C-like syntax. > "The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt. – Rob Pike" > "It must be familiar, roughly C-like. Programmers working at Google are early in their careers and are most familiar with procedural languages, particularly from the C family. The need to get programmers productive quickly in a new language means that the language cannot be too radical. – Rob Pike" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16143918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16143918 If you're interested in a critique that goes more deeply into Go's actual design flaws, as opposed to its deliberate design tradeoffs, I enjoy https://fasterthanli.me/articles/i-want-off-mr-golangs-wild-ride https://fasterthanli.me/articles/i-want-off-mr-golangs-wild-....