> I also think this statement betrays an incredible short-sightedness. You are looking at the technology you know and think "Wow! This is so simple! Why aren't

> I also think this statement betrays an incredible short-sightedness. You are looking at the technology you know and think "Wow! This is so simple! Why aren't those things I don't know this simple?" Your technology appears simple to you primarily because it is yours. That's not a relativistic statement to imply that all technology is equally difficult to learn, it's just how our perspective shifts as we internalize new concepts You are implying that I'm not familiar with other technologies. On the contrary, before I learned Go I was intimately familiar with several other languages. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have any basis to compare or criticize them. > To me, C++ is a lot simpler than Go. I've tried to grasp how to use things like interfaces and channels in Go, but I haven't quite figured it out yet. I think the difference between C++ and Go is that you'll understand Go in its entirety within a year, whereas it took you a decade to get there with C++.