I certainly see the need for Rust, a better, stricter and more modern C designed for low-level tasks where both performance and correctness matter, e.g. layout

I certainly see the need for Rust, a better, stricter and more modern C designed for low-level tasks where both performance and correctness matter, e.g. layout engines, game engines, OS kernels. On the other hand Go seems more suited to system/server tools where good-enough perfmance and quick startup matters more. I've noticed that people have been converting Python and Ruby code-bases to Go, and its use in system tools such as Docker, CoreOS, and Kuberentes. We're working in this area and have considered jumping on the bandwagon and rewriting our Python prototype in Go for the same reasons - performance, minimal runtime, strong ecosystem, some 'typing'. (Python made/makes sense atm as we're still very exploratory so doesn't get in our way). However upon investigation I was a bit disappointed with Go, although it has an incredible ecosystem and active community. Perhaps its simplicity is also an advantage although I found it counter-intuitive at times. However I can see why it found use in a way that 'better' (IMHO) tools such as OCaml were unable to. We're still undecided as to what to use when/if rewriting our code. Funnily enough I'm wondering if maybe C#/F# would work, now .NET has been open-sourced and has a native compiler. A good language/runtime, stronger type-system, lots of libraries, and potentially good performance with quick startup. I guess it would be quite amusing if MS's tooling ended up as the best way to write Linux system/server tools within those particular constraints.