[sarchertech]

> The people who designed golang are not newbies. They didn't ignore anything, nor were they ignorant of other languages.

Chalking everything missing from go up to "the designers know what they are doing--every omission was on purpose", ignores the way humans design things. We are really good at post hoc rationalization.

Bob: "Why did you draw the woman in tall grass?"

Alice: "To allow the viewer to engage with the piece by forcing them to use their imagination to visualize the hidden area."

Bob: "Are you sure it's not because you don't like drawing hands and feet?"

[frankietwenty9]

At the same time critiquing without understanding the problem the engineer was trying to solve is equally easy.

Go is far from perfect, I just don't agree that lumping things in a good/bad pile is very insightful.

Engineering is all about making compromises. It's unsurprising that you'll meet everyones use cases that it's not designed for. The article would have provided additional value if it explored alternatives to the bad, and the disadvantages that come with them.

[sinatra]

They are talking about things like generics. Considering the years it took for a team of people to build Go, I think it’s fair to assume they didn’t just forget about generics and that it was an intentional decision.

[michaelcampbell]

Ignore != forget; let's not drag this tortured semantic armchair quarterbacking any further than it already has been.