Rob Pike did not aim to replace "C++", but "C++ as he used it at Google". Looks like he succeeded at that. For those problems garbage collection is a good idea

Rob Pike did not aim to replace "C++", but "C++ as he used it at Google". Looks like he succeeded at that. For those problems garbage collection is a good idea (did the C++ guys try Boehm?) and compilation time is critical. From the article: "We weren't trying to design a better C++, or even a better C. It was to be a better language overall for the kind of software we cared about." I agree with most of what Pike says until the end, where he derides C++ programmers: "C++ programmers don't come to Go because they have fought hard to gain exquisite control of their programming domain, and don't want to surrender any of it. To them, software isn't just about getting the job done, it's about doing it a certain way. The issue, then, is that Go's success would contradict their world view." This is just wrong. They do not come, because Go simply does not fit the requirements. Go is more opinionated and targets a smaller niche than C++. Nothing wrong with that. If Go and C++ both fit your requirements, Go is probably the better choice. The only language I know, which explicitly targets C++ is D, but it is not there yet completely. Though, depending on your needs it might enough and it is an improvement over C++.