[vgchh]

Well let perfect not be the enemy of the good. The reality is that Go is wildly successful in practice for good reasons that have been hashed numerous times. As a result tons of Cloud software is written in Go.

There is nothing Go needs to be ashamed on. Its mindshare is a result of a good choice people made at a certain point in time. A better language will win at its own merits.

[kerkeslager]

I'm not letting perfect be the enemy of good, I'm saying Go isn't good. No language is perfect, but there's literally not a single use case I'd choose Go for, because there are a dozen languages that do almost everything better.

> Its mindshare is a result of a good choice people made at a certain point in time.

Its mindshare is a result of Google using it, and people mistakenly thinking that if Google uses it, it must be good.

[saturn_vk]

That's OK. But saying it isn't good as a fact is a bit misleading. If it wasn't any good, it would not be used and would've faded to obscurity a long time ago. That is not the case, so there must be some redeeming qualities to is

[masklinn]

> Well let perfect not be the enemy of the good.

When you have half a dozen generic builtins but reject the idea that builtins are necessary, and can’t even be arsed to provide a working vector type, you’re nowhere near “good”.

[LaPingvino]

They never rejected it. In the very first post launching it they commented that they considered Generics but didn't add them because they didn't find a way that works well with Go's principles. I'm happy it took them the time it did to get to the current design. They did have a vector type before version 1 too, they intentionally removed it for similar reasons.