[paldepind2]

> I guess Google’s years of experience led to the conclusion that, for software development to scale, a simple type system, GC, and wicked fast compilation speed are more important than raw runtime throughput and semantic correctness.

I'm a fan of Go, but I don't think it's the product of some awesome collective Google wisdom and experience. Had it been, I think they'd have come to the conclusion that statically eliminating null pointer exceptions was a worthwhile endeavor, just to mention one thing. Instead, I think it's just the product of some people at Google making a language they way they wanted to.

[IshKebab]

And indeed they did come to that conclusion - for Dart 2.

Go is the product of like 3 Googlers' tastes. It isn't some perfect answer born out of the experience of thousands of geniuses.

I think they got a lot right - fantastic tooling, avoiding glibc, auto-formatting, tabs, even the "no functional programming so you have to write simple code" thing is definitely a valid position. But I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Go's handling of null is anything but a huge mistake.

[melodyogonna]

But those people at Google were veteran researchers who wanted to make a language that could scale for Google's use cases; these things are well documented.

For example, Ken Thompson has said his job at Google was just to find things he could make better.

[nine_k]

They also built a language that can be learned in a weekend (well, now two) and is small enough for a fresh grad hire to learn at the job.

Go has a very low barrier to entry, but also a relatively low ceiling. The proliferation of codegen tools for Go is a testament of its limited expressive power.

It doesn't mean that Go didn't hit a sweet spot. For certain tasks, it very much did.