[usrbinbash]

By definition, every bit added to a language makes it more complex to learn.

Sure, it could be done. Lots of things could be done to Go. The people who invented it are among the most brilliant computer scientists alive. It's a pretty sure bet that they know about, and in great detail, every single thing people complain Go doesn't have.

So every thing that is "missing" from Go isn't in it for a reason.

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Airman's Odyssey

[nicoburns]

Not at all. Otherwise brainfuck would be the simplest language to learn. How do you currently represent a type that is A or B in Go? You have to use an interface. That’s much more complex than using a sum type would be.

[usrbinbash]

Well, Brainfuck is simple to learn. The entire specification fits comfortably on a single page. Simple to learn doesn't automatically imply simple to use for any given purpose. The same is true for Go.

> You have to use an interface. That’s much more complex than using a sum type would be.

More complex how and by what metric?

[joshuamorton]

> The entire specification fits comfortably on a single page

But to understand the specification and how it can be used to do a programming, you need to have at least a cursory understanding of turing machines and related theory, which isn't necessary to learn Java or python.

Under your definition, the conceptually simplest language is something like SUBLEQ, (the specification is only a single line!) but in this case, being able to implement the language, and learning the language aren't the same thing. Learning the language generally means, like, useful for given purposes.

[tialaramex]

It's definitely not as simple as "More features = harder to learn".

Removing footguns (nulls are a footguns, race-able concurrent APIs are a footgun) can make it easier to learn even though this may introduce new features (in this case sum types) to solve the problem.

[pjmlp]

It is not like Oberon, Plan 9, Inferno and Limbo were such a huge commercial successes.

Had those brilliant computer scientists not been employed at Google, it would have been another Oberon or Limbo.

[usrbinbash]

Yes, having a good backing by a huge entity is a bonus.

But it's not a guarantee for success either. Google+ anyone?

[pjmlp]

Indeed, yet it helps a lot, as proven by all wannabe C and C++ successor languages.

The only ones that are actually taking off, have the baking of major corps, even if it is only giving money into the project.