[dgellow]

You will also rarely regret starting with Go. It's not really a language you would use to have fine memory control and the best performances, so I'm not sure why you mention it as a response to the text you quoted. Go is more like a good balance between low memory usage, good performances, while being a very productive tool.

[samhw]

This is true. I'm a Rust fanatic myself, but I grudgingly admit that I wouldn't start a company with Rust. I just wouldn't trust future engineers enough. Whereas with Go, I'd never write it in my spare time, and I hate the paternalism and limitedness, but those same qualities make it an excellent quality for a company language.

If there's one thing I'd say about Go, it's that it's a language you can roll out across hundreds of junior engineers writing relatively sophisticated code and trust that you'll get a very respectable balance of (a) runtime performance, (b) developer productivity, and (c) safety (memory, thread[0], type, etc).

[0] OK, not in the strict way that Rust offers. But the simplicity and verbosity makes it easy to spot errors, the standard lib offers excellent primitives for concurrent programming, and `go test -race` sweeps up most of the rest.

[egberts1]

Only non productive part is the endless juggling of Go modules’ versioning.

[dgellow]

I don’t know what you mean by that. The only situation where I spent time fighting with go dependencies is when people use vanity URLs, but that has nothing to do with modules. I haven’t experienced any issue with module versioning.