> There is an important school of thought... We are advocating the same school of thought. However languages designed by such schools rarely get mainstream - S

> There is an important school of thought... We are advocating the same school of thought. However languages designed by such schools rarely get mainstream - Scheme, Lua, Smalltalk, to name a few that I know of. People acknowledge them, put them on the altar and ignore them. Go is the first language in decades I know of that boasts simplicity as a feature and gets mainstream; C is the last one before Go. There are things I dislike about Go (esp. lack of generics), but I find it worth defending. I apologize for my somewhat cynical intonation, if that caused confusions. > Ask yourself. Which of these two languages are more likely to be complemented by language nerds/snobs - C++, or Scheme... I don't understand this question. > And some people who apparently belong to this school of thought are criticizing Go for not being orthogonal enough. I am very eager to hear such criticisms, but I haven't come across any of them. Most "criticisms" on Go are simply "Go lacks feature X", which are simply invalid. A valid criticism is "It is very tricky for me to solve problem X with Go, and adding feature Y will make things easier", but I don't always buy it unless the author is smart enough to convince me that the difficulty lies in the limitation of Go instead of the author's intelligence.