[pekk]

Go is frequently presented as a replacement of Python. When people hear that, it sets up an expectation that Go will have the same pleasant qualities of Python, when it doesn't, any more than Python has goroutines.

[nkozyra]

Go is more frequently presented as a replacement for C++/Java with a syntax that feels more like an interpreted language like Python or Ruby.

I find that to be totally true. It's certainly lighter to write in than C++ or Java, "go run" effectively feels like running the interpreter and eschewing {} and ; lends to the latter, as well.

And Python has concurrency options as well - "goroutines" is, obviously, relegated to Go.

[pekk]

Interviews with Pike et al. have always made clear that Go actually was made to compete with Java and C++. I wouldn't argue with that.

But the rank and file as represented on HN among other places presents Go as a replacement for Python all the time. It's one of the most common memes about Go. And this sets up expectations Go wasn't designed to fulfill. When a new user honestly reports that Go doesn't fulfill those expectations, we yell at him as for making a dishonest and unfair comparison when really, we set up the dishonest and unfair comparison ourselves when we promoted Go as a replacement for Python. As long as we continue to promote Go that way, we should expect people to compare them, and we shouldn't yell at them for making honest reports that Go and Python are different in ways they are designed to be.

[derefr]

I don't think anyone explicitly marketed Go as a replacement for Python; instead, Go was instead marketed as, for some use-cases (low-level-ish software) what you should have been using in the first place—places where you should have been using C++/Java, not Python, but where Python was used anyway because the alternatives were too unwieldy.