There are many examples in the Go docs, e.g. http://golang.org/pkg/net/http/#pkg-examples http://golang.org/pkg/net/http/#pkg-examples (runnable and editable to

There are many examples in the Go docs, e.g. http://golang.org/pkg/net/http/#pkg-examples http://golang.org/pkg/net/http/#pkg-examples (runnable and editable too!) But I agree that there aren't enough, and that's probably the worst thing about Go documentation, especially when dealing with the lower-level libraries. Just to be clear, I don't think verbosity means that documentation is better. Documentation is better when it gives you the information you need, and nothing more. That being said, I mostly think Go's documentation is better than Java's, and on par if not slightly better than C#'s. Here's a better example of what I mean, e.g. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/allclasses-noframe.html http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/allclasses-noframe.... vs. http://golang.org/pkg/ http://golang.org/pkg/ Granted, if you have no experience at all with the language--e.g. you haven't even taken the tour at http://tour.golang.org/--the http://tour.golang.org/--the documentation may be hard to read (what does "[]" mean, for example), but that's not the fault of API documentation, which rightly is clear and concise. Rather, that's the job for a comprehensive tutorial, which Go has: http://tour.golang.org/ http://tour.golang.org/