[anyfoo]

I did. Rob Pike said that Go was purposefully made similar to C (and by extension other languages similar to C), in order to be familiar and get new engineers who are already familiar with C or C-like languages to become productive without having to learn too much.

And while I can totally understand how that makes sense in the intended setting, I don't consider that pleasing at all. "Pleasing" for me implies that I like a thing because I like the thing itself, not because external constraints impose (perceived) limitations on other choices. Especially in this context, where we were talking about learning and using a programming language by choice, instead of assembling a team of programmers from an already common pool.

[philosopher1234]

I think your critique, if you examine it closely and deeply, is fundamentally an arrogant one. Sorry for the harsh claim, but I truly do believe this.

You are a new developer too. Everyone is. When it’s easy to learn something, it’s easy to relearn it, and it’s easy to learn things around it (because you don’t devote as much brain to the language).

All languages should target new, dumb devs, because all devs (including Rob pike) are new and dumb.

[anyfoo]

I’ve certainly learned things that were harder and more time consuming to learn, for a payoff that was and continues to be well worth the effort. Including programming languages. I did not claim it was easier for me, so how is that arrogant?

And I absolutely reject the notion that an easy to learn programming language is better. Especially so because Go was made “easier to learn” in large parts by its similarity to C, so it’s really easier for people already and only familiar with C, and that was explicitly stated by the creators.