I am a certified Go zealot; pretty much anyone who's trolled through enough threads here can attest to that. However, I am increasingly interested in .NET these

I am a certified Go zealot; pretty much anyone who's trolled through enough threads here can attest to that. However, I am increasingly interested in .NET these days. I think Microsoft and the .NET community have built something truly compelling, and the language design of C# is superb (and I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but I'm routinely impressed with what they accomplish version over version.) My only hangup is that I have had my confidence shaken by Microsoft's occasional showing of hand: with the foundation drama, the debugger nonsense, and with the weird CLI live reload removal, it seems there's still some shades of old Microsoft hanging around. I don't honestly believe they'd pull a complete bait-and-switch, and let's face it, Go is backed almost entirely by Google, a company that is at least as difficult to trust in the long run, but I wish they would, or perhaps could, do something to send a strong signal that they won't meddle with things anymore. What they have done with open sourcing .NET is highly mutually beneficial to Microsoft, and I won't lie that I think it was a greater service to us than them in some regards... but at the risk of sounding greedy here, I need to be able to trust that the people in charge are not going to pull any funny business if I'm going to invest my time, effort and possibly business into an ecosystem. > There are some - debatable - arguments that static typing reduces bugs. [...] I think the key benefit for me is what it enables in terms of reading and maintaining code. I find that static types help me understand the intent and implementation of half-remembered or unfamiliar code much more quickly. But, that's a large part of how it helps reduce bugs, in my opinion. The other part is that static typing can legitimately disallow certain classes of runtime errors, but obviously that doesn't in and of itself guarantee that code is overall less buggy. In practice, though, at least as far as reducing runtime crashes, JS with TypeScript has been night-and-day better than without. Maybe static typing itself is not actually guaranteed to reduce bugs, but in practice any system that can replace bits of "Just Don't Make Mistakes" with diagnostics is going to improve reliability. The only case where I have ever questioned it was MyPy, and that's because I feel the MyPy type system is just not powerful enough to properly cover the vast majority of idiomatic Python (or it requires too much effort.) If MyPy was more sophisticated, though, there's just no doubt in my mind on that one. All in all though I do think C# is a good choice for a productive environment to write code in. Modern .NET has a good ecosystem of tools, libraries, and frameworks, impressive language design going on in its most popular languages, and it's honestly pretty good in terms of performance and scalability. While "right tool for the right job" is a little over-indexed on, I do think that Rust occupies a bit of a different space than C#/.NET. Rust remains king for very high performance, minimal overhead, and safe concurrency; it's got very few direct competitors. You certainly could use Rust for anything you could do in C#, but I think C# is ultimately more productive. This is not hate towards Rust, though, as I personally am the type of person that finds the value proposition of Rust very appealing and I certainly plan on investing more into Rust in the future. A better comparison for C# is Go: I think they occupy a surprisingly similar space for all of their differences. And in that realm, C# compares shockingly favorably, especially modern C# on modern .NET.