I Do Not Like Go
tl;dr - they said go was going to be simple. It is.<p>Preface: It&#x27;s perfectly OK to dislike languages, especially when you know of a better one that you&#x27;re <i>not</i> using. I personally cannot help but think of all the better languages I could be using when I have to write some verbose bad abstraction in a less expressive&#x2F;powerful language. Also, as I re-read this, the notion has struck me that I might be a Golang apologist. Also, as others have noticed, the Go 2 drafts mention just about every point in this article.<p>That said, I think OP misses the point of Go -- it&#x27;s meant to be simple, productive, and production-ready. Many of the points that OP makes about the mistakes I kind of shrugged at.<p>&gt; I&#x27;ve never met a language lead so openly hostile to the idea of developer ergonomics.<p>I&#x27;m not sure I believe this C++&#x2F;Java have similarly bad ergonomics, just in a different way -- they give&#x2F;saddle you with abstractions that are easy to use wrongly and let you build a shit castle with amazing speed, while keeping yourself open to to a hornets nest of mistakes and pitfalls. Go sacrifices these features for a reason, and they stated it up front.<p>That said, I do think they made a huge mistake not having proper union&#x2F;sum types (AKA Algebraic Data Types&#x2F;ADTs), but I can forgive them because building an excellent type system might have gotten in the way of their stated simplicity goals.<p>&gt; In Go&#x27;s case, the language embodies an extremely rigid caste hierarchy of &quot;skilled programmers&quot; and &quot;unskilled programmers,&quot; enforced by the language itself.<p>I think this is a reflection of the Go, Google, and programming community in general. Whether it&#x27;s the &quot;10x engineer&quot; or working-at-big-companies-means-you&#x27;re-a-good-engineer mentality, this mindset is pervasive. It&#x27;s the difference between a Senior Staff Software Engineer II and a Senior Engineer who just moved in from some other company -- it&#x27;s trust.<p>&gt; Again, the Go team&#x27;s &quot;not our problem&quot; response is disappointing and frustrating.<p>Sucks that they didn&#x27;t solve those problems up front, but I personally do not blame them for focusing on <i>shipping</i>, and fixing as they go. Honestly with the amount of work they&#x27;ve put in, they have built a runtime and language that have comparable performance and are more simple than Java + JVM. The JVM has <i>millions</i> of man hours dumped into it over decades. This is insane.<p>Also, there&#x27;s the fact that whether it&#x27;s a complete farce or not, they have left open an avenue for changing the language. People could fork Go and change it if they really felt that strongly about this stuff. The thing is, people for the most part don&#x27;t -- if you want a better type system go use (and convince your team to use) a better language.<p>&gt; The standard Go approach to operations which may fail involves returning multiple values (not a tuple; Go has no tuples) where the last value is of type error, which is an interface whose nil value means “no error occurred.”<p>Yes, error handling in Golang is less than ideal, but I prefer the forcing of this as a default over the C++&#x2F;Java approach -- this default makes it very hard to write code that doesn&#x27;t deal with errors <i>at the place you&#x27;re most able to correct&#x2F;work around them</i>. Again, I&#x27;m also giving Golang a pass for not having errors-as-values in the way a language with a good type system would... because Go sacrificed their type system for simplicity.<p>I don&#x27;t think Go is a good programming language, but I <i>do</i> think it delivers on what it promises. It does what it set out to do -- be simple, productive, and production-ready (this is mostly because they hammered out all the bugs with tons of buy in from developers inside and outside google, and it&#x27;s still not perfect of course).<p>I&#x27;ve said it before and I&#x27;ll say it again -- I think Go will supplant Java as the language most companies use on the backend in &lt;10 years. Fundamentally, because of the developer fungibility benefits of Go -- it&#x27;s going to be easier than ever to swap out Golang programmers than ever -- you won&#x27;t even have to be a JVM master (which is normally one of the border points between Java amateurs and pros) to write good-enough code.<p>Business thrives on good-enough code, not good code -- Golang is excellent for that, and gets proven more and more right every day with all the companies that are writing performant, statically compilable (thus easier to ship) code and just getting shit done.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;go.googlesource.com&#x2F;proposal&#x2F;+&#x2F;master&#x2F;design&#x2F;go2draft.md" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;go.googlesource.com&#x2F;proposal&#x2F;+&#x2F;master&#x2F;design&#x2F;go2draf...</a>