[ihusasmiiu]

When I look at a language I could not care less about the selection of keywords, the syntax used for a loop or the naming conventions. What I look for are the means of abstraction that the language provides, and Go gives nothing more than C.

[umvi]

> Go gives nothing more than C.

Huh? At the very least Go has a safe, robust string abstraction which C does not have. Not to mention slices, maps, range based for loops, a "batteries included" style standard library, and more...

[chubot]

Go has strings, slices, maps / hash tables, channels, and interfaces. C doesn't have any of those things. (It has quirky string libraries, and string literal syntax, and that's about it)

[qbasic_forever]

That's an explicit feature and not a bug for the design of the Go language. They don't want it to be a kitchen sink of a language with everything for everyone.