[preommr]

My personal conspiracy is that Golang is an epic prank.

Make a language that's really good in some ways and just horrible in other ways for no reason whatsoever.

So that when it's critics point out contradictory features like embedding, it's defenders can be the ultimate troll and say things like "but, actually, it's a simple language because it doesn't have while loops".

It's the best explanation I have for some of the cognitive dissonance surrounding the language design.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

Is it possible that it's like every other language, with flaws and tradeoffs that don't always make sense to everyone? Why make it more complicated than that?

[hakunin]

This might sound bad, but having worked in a few different languages, I find it kind of cute how some parts of Go seem to promote simplicity while others are simply what the authors were used to growing up. Sometimes it frustrates me when I write Go, when I see a tradeoff due to the latter. But yeah. Languages tend to have a lot of subjectivity of their author in them. The more "strict" the language is, the more confined you are to the author's opinions.

[jerf]

I've been programming in Go for ten years.

This problem has happened to me once.

Would you care to make a list of all the problems your favorite language has served up to you at a rate of once in ten years, so I can also write a post making your language sound horrible as a result?

[nine_k]

> just horrible in other ways for no reason whatsoever

I bet the reasons were very mundane: initial project scope, deadlines, performance review cycle. "This simplest thing that could possibly work", etc.

[shadowgovt]

As with most small-team languages, it was built mostly to solve the problems that its initial author had in front of them.