> I'm not sure here how you differentiate minimalist from restrictive. The flexibility of the language and its syntax. The more constructs are syntactic, the l

> I'm not sure here how you differentiate minimalist from restrictive. The flexibility of the language and its syntax. The more constructs are syntactic, the less minimalistic it is, and Go is a very syntactic language. > I've always considered Go to be minimalist in terms of available tokens to the programmer: https://github.com/e3b0c442/keywords/blob/main/chart.png https://github.com/e3b0c442/keywords/blob/main/chart.png No language on this chart has even a passing resemblance to minimalistic. I don't think anything does when it reaches double digit keywords. For reference, I believe Smalltalk has 6. And forth is more complicated because it doesn't really have keywords at all, and barely any syntax, instead it has assembly-coded / runtime-provided words (~functions) and variables. SectorForth (https://github.com/cesarblum/sectorforth/ https://github.com/cesarblum/sectorforth/) is down to 8 builtin words, 2 IO words, and 5 variables (milliforth packs those behind a word instead). And so far 2 of the words have been found unnecessary / redundant.