[pdpi]

> relying on static initialization is something one should think about potentially solving differently

This is such a notorious problem, it even has a name: Static Initialisation Order Fiasco (see: https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/ctors#static-init-order)

The symmetrical Static Destruction Order Fiasco is also a very fun problem to deal with. The solution proposed for SIOF in the C++ FAQ does nothing to help you deal with this one, though.

[pcwalton]

Perhaps worse, lots of new languages, for example Go, copied this mistake from C++. :(

[helper]

Is the "static initialization order fiasco" a thing that can happen in go? The order of package level variable initialization is well defined in the spec and because go doesn't allow import cycles it seems like the issue mentioned in the linked page is not possible.

[pcwalton]

Static initialization order may be defined, but that doesn't mean it's easy to reason about.

[pjmlp]

Actually, if you mean package initialization blocks, they were already present in Mesa derived languages.