> I wonder: why not go further and say "there will never be a Go 2" in order to eliminate ambiguity about this? They did, five years ago. Albeit with an “if”.

> I wonder: why not go further and say "there will never be a Go 2" in order to eliminate ambiguity about this? They did, five years ago. Albeit with an “if”. https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/d661ed19a203000b7c5441d2cd63a6e4b98ff2ba/design/28221-go2-transitions.md#go-2 https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/d661ed19a203000b7c54... > If the above process works as planned, then in an important sense there never will be a Go 2. Or, to put it a different way, we will slowly transition to new language and library features. We could at any point during the transition decide that now we are Go 2, which might be good marketing. Or we could just skip it (there has never been a C 2.0, why have a Go 2.0?). > Popular languages like C, C++, and Java never have a version 2. In effect, they are always at version 1.N, although they use different names for that state. I believe that we should emulate them. In truth, a Go 2 in the full sense of the word, in the sense of an incompatible new version of the language or core libraries, would not be a good option for our users. A real Go 2 would, perhaps unsurprisingly, be harmful.