I agree. That is a correct reading. Where I do not agree is on the assumption that a basic feature set can be construed as a simpler language. While true for th

I agree. That is a correct reading. Where I do not agree is on the assumption that a basic feature set can be construed as a simpler language. While true for the language proper, it isn't true for real usage of language plus libraries. Take operator overloading. It can be used to create hellish code. It can also be used to create great libraries (numpy for instance). Because of the danger of hellish code, Go makes it impossible to create numpy in Go. In the end, while Go is simpler, a numpy in Go would be more complex[1], because the language is not expressive enough. The simplicity argument, while true for the language proper, is false for advanced usage. [1] For example, you can't write Ma * Mb, but must remember the dot product method name.