Go and Dogma
There are a lot of decisions in Go that I find very distasteful.  It&#x27;s frustrating because Go comes very close to being something I&#x27;d want to use, but falls short in all areas.<p>It has this great automatic interface system!  Amazing!  Except it also has &quot;primitive&quot; types that can&#x27;t participate, so many of my functions have to take interface{} instead which is pretty much void*.<p>It can dispatch to different functions based on the argument types!  It will even automatically switch to the non-pointer type if you pass a pointer to a non-pointer function.  However, you can&#x27;t write a pointer and non-pointer version of the same function.  Also why are we using pointers to represent reference mutability and optionality these days?  Other languages have maybe&#x2F;option which handles optionality much better.<p>Speaking of not having maybe&#x2F;option, every other line of code is &quot;if (err == nil)&quot; and there&#x27;s no way to abstract this out.  Give me `option` dammit.  Exception handling exists via panic, but it&#x27;s a little different than you&#x27;re used to and the language designers like to pretend it&#x27;s not exception handling at all.<p>There are built-in functions that use generics, but I&#x27;m not allowed to write one?  Hypocrites.<p>You have to name things starting with a capital letter to make them public.  Who came up with this convention?  It is not shared by any language ever.  It also gets extremely annoying when you want to serialize json, serialize a protocol buffer, or do a database query.  Name your struct members in lowercase and those libraries won&#x27;t be able to see them, but name them in uppercase and the output will be in the wrong case.  Instead, you have to &quot;annotate&quot; those struct fields repeatedly for every library you&#x27;re going to pass them to.  You also have to manage &quot;naming convention&quot; systems that translate between the two names, and these conventions are never the same between two libraries.