You misunderstand me. There is nothing <i>in</i> Go channels, syntactically or semantically, that is improved by being in the language itself, except insofar as the language does not provide meaningful and useful abstractions to its users to allow <i>them</i> to do it. I don&#x27;t care why they say they did it, I care that it <i>isn&#x27;t very good</i> and that I can&#x27;t effectively replace it because the core developers don&#x27;t give me the tools to do what is trivial in any other statically-typed language I see in common use. Channels and goroutines exist as core language features <i>because the language is inexpressive</i> because Go fundamentally does not trust end-use programmers to do smart things--so core developers had to do it instead.<p>&quot;Misstep&quot; was the kindest phrasing I had for the kind of trainwreckish design decisions and institutional reification of developer mediocrity that get you to what you&#x27;re defending.<p>Your chosen tools have contempt for you, and it mystifies me as to why you would defend them for their failures.