> This is a bold statement, care to back that up with examples? I would argue it's less bold than claiming Go does keep things simple and uniform. It's weird t

> This is a bold statement, care to back that up with examples? I would argue it's less bold than claiming Go does keep things simple and uniform. It's weird to require someone to prove that a language doesn't have nice properties. In any case, one glaring example of non-uniformity is how slices and maps are magically generic. I would also argue that Go's error handling solution of returning a pair is not very simple. Returning two things when only one of them should ever be populated is incidental complexity, and adds cognitive load. Something like a sum type is simpler, as you only get a value or the error.