I think that&#x27;s what he&#x27;s appealing to, but I have a hard time reconciling that sentiment with many design characteristics of Go. Go&#x27;s type system for instance... I don&#x27;t think he fully grasps &quot;what he&#x27;s trying to solve&quot; by having a static type system in golang, when the language has things like unsafe casting, null pointers, a lack of parametric polymorphism, etc. As a programmer tool, its hugely weakened by these design decisions... there are large classes of properties about code that are simply impossible (or are much more complicated) to encode using types in golang. And yet in their literature on some of these subjects, they make an appeal to simplicity [1]. I think there&#x27;s a disconnect here between theory and practice.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;golang.org&#x2F;doc&#x2F;faq#generics" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;golang.org&#x2F;doc&#x2F;faq#generics</a>