Yeah - I skipped the type inclusion, as I just viewed it as a misfeature, assuming we're talking about the implicit casts between different number types. As to

Yeah - I skipped the type inclusion, as I just viewed it as a misfeature, assuming we're talking about the implicit casts between different number types. As to ':=' in Go, yeah - a new thing over Oberon-2. Since assignment in Go uses C style '=' whereas Oberon uses Pascal style ':=', I certainly was not confusing them. The characterisation came about because of an implicit complaint (from C programmers) about a choice of Go for a project. Now never having used Oberon-2, but having read the report, I used the comparison to a stripped version it as a way of showing how simple the language actually was. Something like 25 pages being sufficient to describe it. The things which struck me were: O2 MODULE becomes Go package (and similar syntax use) O2 NEW retained as Go new, but &Foo{} generally preferred O2 export of symbol via '\*' tag becomes Go export via capital letter. O2 Open arrays replaced by Go slices or strings. O2 WITH because Go 'type switch' O2 'type guard' becomes Go 'type assertion' O2 VAR parameters to PROCEDURES become Go pointer parameters to funcs But in the end it is very much a subjective thing, so unless using the non classful parts of Oberon-2 reveals significant differences, I'd have to stick with my evaluation.