Go Statement Considered Harmful (2018)
There's one key difference between Go and all the other examples: an uncaught panic in any goroutine, not just the main goroutine, crashes the app.<p>Often your main goroutine will just be starting other goroutines, in a multiple-services-one-process architecture, and it doesn't care whether they succeed or not, and its code need not be aware of whether they're critical. If they are, they should panic and crash the program. Just like a main function that crashes.<p>Doing things with the nursery is restrictive which has its benefits, but I don't agree that it's just strictly always the preferred approach. I prefer an approach like Go's, where you can choose whether to use nurseries (errgroups), and the implementation for them is provided by the language authors. Sure, you are able to start and manage goroutines in this way, even if you don't care about their lifetime - as they are effectively individual programs, but you shouldn't HAVE to.<p>So when you care about goroutines running only while their starter goroutine is at a certain scope, you can do so. But you don't have to, and when you don't need it - you don't need to pay the price. Go appears to take an approach that provides primitives that are as least restrictive as possible to make it easy to read code, but then also has a batteries included approach with its libraries.