Should we expect every discussion about PL to be an occasion to rant against languages designed at Google? > I think it's fair to say that C# is a better langu

Should we expect every discussion about PL to be an occasion to rant against languages designed at Google? > I think it's fair to say that C# is a better language than Go. According to what criteria? > The biggest flaw in Go (lack of generics) is met with the weak excuse that they haven't figured out how to do it right. I agree that generics would be useful in Go. But this is hardly a major issue for day-to-day programming in most projects. Here is a better explanation of why Go has no generics, by Ian Lance Taylor, a member of the core team: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/smT_0BhHfBs/MWwGlB-n40kJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/smT_0BhHfBs/MWwG... > I don't know much about Dart, but Typescript is a stellar language. I don't know Dart either, but I'm wondering how you can compare Typescript and Dart if you happen to know only the former. > Google, on the other hand, favors pragmatism over theory and prefers to draw on software engineering experience. Google's languages aren't bad, they just don't seem to have much going for them as languages. Their failings are partly made up for in other things, like the toolchain, libraries, etc. I mostly agree with this. > it's clear that PL theory does lead to better languages Languages are not everything. PL theory can also lead to better tools, that work on existing "traditional" languages (the obvious example being static analysis tools).