[JetSetIlly]

True. However the control really only extends to the name and the amount of human effort allowed by employees on the Google implementation, as far as I can tell.

If Google decide that they were no longer developing their implementation of the language and moving the employees to other things, there's nothing stopping a foundation from being established. It would be ideal if this was organised by Google as part of their exit, but failing that I would expect other stake-holders in the language to organise something.

What advantages would moving to a foundation like structure bring to Go?

[v5v3]

Strategic direction, roadmap and general decisions are set by the independent foundation and not by Google.

[JetSetIlly]

Okay. So it's really just a protection against Google deciding to stop its own development and leaving everyone hanging. That's good. I could get on board with that.

For me however, I think it would be a challenge for the foundation to maintain the slow-and-steady development that we've seen under Google.

To bring it back to the main topic: I think a language that rarely introduces major new features, is good for teaching purposes. From that perspective, I think Go is a good language for teaching core concepts.