[bstpierre]

I think that what you’re talking about might even be the killer feature that is often ignored: the forced simplicity. It’s a simple enough language that you can drop into a codebase and read without having to look up much syntax, assuming you have some familiarity with c-family languages. Yes, there are some weird bits that you have to learn, but the learning curve is very short compared to a lot of other languages.

[p-e-w]

Indeed, Go is reduced to the bare essentials!

That's why it has primitive types representing complex numbers, which maybe 1 in 10,000 projects will use.

It doesn't have enums though, because who needs those?

[foldr]

No need to be so salty. No-one is claiming that Go is an ultraminimalist language, just that it's relatively simple compared to most of the alternatives.

[matwood]

> the forced simplicity

I appreciate this about Go. I'm not a programming language wonk, and Go's forced simplicity makes it easier to read other people's code.

[kaba0]

Ad absurdum that would mean that programming in assembly is the most readable.

Abstraction is the only reason we can write any complex program.

[erik_seaberg]

The bigger the toolbox is, the more becoming an expert pays off. I would much rather fully learn a language I’m using as a working professional, than have to review many home-grown solutions to a common problem the language ignored.