> The only things I can think of which Go did that seemed blatantly wrong in that era would be the lack of generics and proper enums. Typescript added "imprope

> The only things I can think of which Go did that seemed blatantly wrong in that era would be the lack of generics and proper enums. Typescript added "improper" enums several years later. Which is especially interesting as it is the one feature in Typescript that doesn't map directly to Javascript. I'm not sure even that one was the settled science back then. Generics were well established at that time, but that one didn't escape the Go authors. From day one it was explicitly called out as a feature Go should have, but that they hadn't figured out how to integrate it. https://youtu.be/rKnDgT73v8s?t=3257 https://youtu.be/rKnDgT73v8s?t=3257 Despite Taylor's admirably insistent efforts to find a solution (with 8+ proposals to his name, dating back to before Go was released to the public!), it ultimately required convincing an outside expert to lend a hand. > I know others find the type system lacking It may be lacking by today's standards where types are all the rage, but at the time we should also remember that it was the case that types simply weren't cool. People had grown tired of "doing XML sit-ups" and had fully embraced dynamic languages in reaction to that. Go was built in that time, for that time, explicitly intending to be a language that felt like a dynamic language but with the performance advantages of a static language. https://youtu.be/rKnDgT73v8s?t=471 https://youtu.be/rKnDgT73v8s?t=471