Agree with it or not, it’s recommended by the docs: > It's helpful if everyone using the package can use the same name to refer to its contents, which implies

Agree with it or not, it’s recommended by the docs: > It's helpful if everyone using the package can use the same name to refer to its contents, which implies that the package name should be good: short, concise, evocative. By convention, packages are given lower case, single-word names; there should be no need for underscores or mixedCaps. https://go.dev/doc/effective_go#names https://go.dev/doc/effective_go#names Maybe the convention of single-letter variable names was meant to play nicely with this too (again, agree with it or not). Can’t say I really care about this issue that much, it’s occasionally a slight nuisance, but show me a programming language that doesn’t have the occasional slight nuisance. An explicit scope resolution operator would be a better solution than forcing package name changes, as called out by another commenter. Maybe that was left out to keep it simple? If anyone knows of a Go blog post about the decision to omit this feature I’d be curious to see it!