[nauticacom]

I thought of Dart as a counterpoint, but if anything it's actually more proof. Dart kinda failed as a language in the browser because Google didn't really push it, and when they did it got pushback. Now that they've repurposed it for building mobile apps, it's surprisingly popular. Sure, not Go-levels of popular, but leaps and bounds more popular than if it were some scrappy OSS project. And it's in a similar camp to Go: reasonably uncontroversial (it's basically Java), large suite of libraries, backed by Google.

[throwaway894345]

Google has never meaningfully "pushed" Go. From Google's perspective, Go is just a backend language that's a good fit for some internal Google applications. I don't think they care tremendously that other people use it, although they certainly don't mind. On the other hand, Google strategically wanted a robust frontend ecosystem (hence investing heavily in Dart and V8) because getting more applications off of PCs and onto the web meant more user data up to collect and more opportunity to serve ads.

In particular, I don't understand how Go is more Java-like than Dart.

    Feature            | Java | Dart | Go
    -------------------+------+------+----
    jit compilation    | yes  | yes  | no
    inheritance        | yes  | yes  | no
    classes            | yes  | yes  | no
    nominal subtyping  | yes  | yes  | no
    native binaries    | no   | no   | yes
    static artifact[0] | no   | no   | yes
    static typing      | yes  | opt  | no
    value types        | no   | no   | yes
   

What other features do Java and Go have in common that they don't also share with Dart?

[0]: For sanity's sake, we'll assume this means "are static artifacts common/default" and not "is it technically possible to produce a static artifact" because for some sufficiently broad definition of static artifact the answer can be yes for any language (e.g., Docker images).