[RangerScience]

> the idea of typing your code is completely foreign

I don't understand this?

> I really don't understand [Go has computer-sciencey-correctness goals]

My impression (way back when, TBH when Go was first announced and discussed) was that the language creators had some Very Strong Ideas about how to do various things 'much more correctly', and/or to avoid specific pain-points they'd had in other languages, and that those things informed a lot of the decisions about Golang; in particular the module system, generics, and error handling.

I'm calling that "computer-sciencey-correctness goals", perhaps incorrectly, as I also got the impression their goals and methods were heavily informed by CS research into computer languages.

[pcthrowaway]

No I don't necessarily disagree about Go, I just don't understand what generics have to do with that.

Are you suggesting generics were divisive because computer science-y people didn't want them or wanted them the best way?

[RangerScience]

Every language has goals. Many of them explicitly state those goals.

1. https://the-zen-of-go.netlify.app/ 2. https://peps.python.org/pep-0020/ 3. https://thethreevirtues.com/ (perl, arguably) 4. https://rubyonrails.org/doctrine

You will end up sacrificing other things in favor of your principles. Other languages sacrifice developer happiness for theirs. Ruby sacrifices other things in favor of developer happiness.

That's it. Everything else is [my] speculation about why people chose their particular principles.

Citation note: I've always heard that "Developer Happiness" is a thing from Matz (Ruby's language creator), but the only place I'm finding it explicitly stated is in the Rails doctrine.