> But, more generally, Go has very little to commend itself and--compared to the other options--quite a few shortcomings. By what standard of measure? I person

> But, more generally, Go has very little to commend itself and--compared to the other options--quite a few shortcomings. By what standard of measure? I personally appreciate the simplicity that Go brings to the table, usually at the cost of features we've come to expect in other programming language environments. Do I miss those features? Sure. But do I like simplicity and straight-forwardness? Definitely. Do I believe there is a way to combine them? I'm not sure. Rust is probably the closest contender. But certainly, languages like Haskell or Java don't do it for me (as frequently as Go does, anyway). What I'm trying to say is that I won't tell you which side of the trade-off you should take in every instance, and maybe you shouldn't either.