[tpsreport]

I simply summarized your article. There is nothing wrong with not being up to handling C++'s error messages. I don't feel up to that task myself most of the time.

But your arguments for Go rang hollow. I'd urge you to go through the "pro-Go" arguments point by point and describe why, say, they apply to Go but not to Python 3.0. And I'm not a Python zealot by any means; I mention it as a comparison point mostly because it's very commonly used.

There are undoubtedly lots of great reasons to use Go, but your article did not enunciate them in a way that would win people over.

[jvm]

"why, say, they apply to Go but not to Python 3.0"

That's sort of a terrible example since python is ill-suited to many (might I dare say a clear majority of?) production environments. The field of general-purpose production languages is actually pretty narrow. I somewhat agree with your point that the reasons were on the superficial side. Nevertheless, people are dissatisfied with the C/C++/JAVA trio and efforts to replace them have so far failed to stick (D comes to mind).

[tpsreport]

If you're unhappy with Python as a baseline comparison, pick anything else you're happy with that other people understand and compare to that.

It's not like we're setting an impossibly high bar here. Just put forward a reasonable argument for why Go is cool. "Closures like salt shakers" will not win anyone over.

[theorique]

* python is ill-suited to many (might I dare say a clear majority of?) production environments *

A bold statement, considering the broad range of production environments that have come to the opposite conclusion.

Do you have anything in specific to back up this claim or is this just name-calling?