It's not from a founder, but I like this paragraph from the preface of The Go Programming Language: Go has enough of a type system to avoid most of the careles

It's not from a founder, but I like this paragraph from the preface of The Go Programming Language: Go has enough of a type system to avoid most of the careless mistakes that plague programmers in dynamic languages, but it has a simpler type system than comparable typed languages. This approach can sometimes lead to isolated pockets of "untyped" programming within a broader framework of types, and Go programmers do not go to the lengths that C++ or Haskell programmers do to express safety properties as type-based proofs. But in practice Go gives programmers much of the safety and run-time performance benefits of a relatively strong type system without the burden of a complex one. I happen to like this idea of gaining safety through the type system. Sometime's when Go's frustrating me I have to remember - it's that I'm be expecting and achieve something it just isn't intended for.