> Languages that allow for a structurally similar codebase offer a significant boon for anyone making code changes because we can easily port changes between th

> Languages that allow for a structurally similar codebase offer a significant boon for anyone making code changes because we can easily port changes between the two codebases. From this I can understand why they did not go with, say, Rust - but there are other compiled languages with garbage collection that could have worked well. Why Go over Crystal? I imagine it's that the Go is the most mature ecostystem (i.e. the interop) but it feels like a missed opportunity.