[d0vs]

If you're used to dynamic languages, it gives you type safety and performance for little effort.

I love Python but always wished for a simple, type-safe language; Go gives me that. It's not worse than Python IMHO.

[pjmlp]

Without support for meta-classes, annotations, generators, iterators and list comprehensions it surely is worse.

[SamWhited]

Unless you're one of the people (like me) who considers its lack of many of those things a feature. More features doesn't necessarily make something "better" and less features doesn't necessarily make it "worse" (whatever your definition of "better" or "worse").

[pjmlp]

No I am not, I am no longer programming in the mid-90's and even on those days, Turbo Pascal had more features than Go.

I only advocate Go as a replacement for those that would use C for user space applications, or possibly some kind of low level stuff.

If Python and Ruby eco-systems had blessed compilers, instead of just CPython and MRI, I doubt people would be flocking to Go.

We already see this happening in the Ruby world, just let Crystal become a bit more mature.

[abecedarius]

Goroutines and channels can substitute for generators and iterators, with maybe a downside of being too much more expressive.

[solidsnack9000]

Colleagues I've spoken with who use both still say, that Python is "20 times" as productive as Go. For some applications this multiplier likely goes down considerably; but Python holds an edge in a lot of areas.