Ok. You have a point, though I don't think my argument is a straw man. Numpy is one of those rare and great libraries. Go's error handling is the way it is for

Ok. You have a point, though I don't think my argument is a straw man. Numpy is one of those rare and great libraries. Go's error handling is the way it is for a reason. The authors chose to leave out exceptions. Stating that exceptions are better because you're more used to them or because they more easily hide errors is not a good critique. Even if you choose to squelch your errors in Go, you can always go back into your code and handle your errors appropriately. That makes it far easier to find bugs and makes your code very robust. I personally like how it compares to C in that regard. Go has some QML bindings that are pretty great, although I don't think that third party libraries are a good measure for a language. Especially seeing as how Go is quite young. I think that facets of the language itself are better choices of criticism. To help the OP, I think that python and other functional languages make dealing with abstract concepts more appealing. I walked the tight rope between writing Flask web sites and Go web sites. In the end, I know how to do either and I don't think one language needs to be better than another. In the case of my example, Sql Alchemy makes it much easier to make web apps. This does not detract from my issue with these kinds of articles in general. This seems to me more like a programmer trying to convince himself to not like a language due to his comfort zone.