I didn't read all of the article. There is something to be said about being able to get your piece across without it becoming story-time. I think the author co

I didn't read all of the article. There is something to be said about being able to get your piece across without it becoming story-time. I think the author could have benefitted from getting their point across with fewer words. I think I understand the gist of where the author wants to go, and I do agree that nurseries sound like a good idea. From observing myself and people around me, I think people learn Go (concurrency) in several phases. I won't be so arrogant as to presume I understand how to always structure goroutines and channels correctly, now. But looking back it was "easy", then it got harder, then it got easier again as my understanding of how to structure things evolved. But I won't say that it is ever easy. Concurrency isn't easy. And it is important to keep in mind that stuff that is supposed to help you won't necessarily make everything easier. Concurrency is still fundamentally hard. The hard bit is to actually design this idea in a way that doesn't make Go ugly or which creates bifurcations in how you use the language. If something causes a bifurcation I would actually claim that it isn't worth doing. There is value in leaving languages alone rather than complicate and potentially make them messy. Languages become harder to use when you have to start deciding on what parts of the language you want to use. Adding stuff to a language with established practices is much harder than designing a language to begin with. Also, syntax matters. I didn't actually mind that Java involved a lot of typing because the syntax wasn't that complex or particularly ugly. It wasn't hard to grasp when reading. Just horribly verbose. But comparing how people I met thought about Java in relation to other languages taught me something important: a surprising number of programmers live at the surface, only caring about syntax, and don't actually understand what the syntax really does. If someone can implement the idea I'll have a look. But if it complicates, bifurcates or makes Go exhibit less developer empathy, it probably shouldn't be inflicted on Go. Perhaps it can be applied elsewhere. And I actually have a recommendation for where to start: scrap the posting and attempt a concise description first.