[pwdisswordfish2]

Businesses often prefer poor languages with lots of cheap programmers readily available to the opposite, because this lets them easily trade off quality against price. Want it done cheap and fast? Get a freshman intern to write it in PHP or JavaScript; if you later want quality, you can then hire some more expensive seniors to fix it up. If you pick Haskell instead, it may be more reliable upfront, but you also have to pay the full price upfront.

Go was explicitly designed to be a poor language of this sort, as evidenced by the infamous Rob Pike quote:

> The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.

In other words: a language that makes programmers fungible. And how did they accomplish this? By omitting features and barely going for the lowest-common denominator of the languages listed, disregarding any reasons other languages may have for their more ‘advanced’ features like generics. Hence, crippled.

(Frankly, I object more to describing Scala as ‘the most complex edifice’.)

[stepbeek]

I'm a big fan of scala and really enjoy the language. That being said, the scala community does sometimes advocate an approach that's pretty over-engineered.