[pjmlp]

Go becoming a proper 21st century language, is like pulling teeth.

It is Apple's school of design, think different, ah, actually, there are reasons why the fence is in the middle of nowhere.

Then the design ends up half way there versus being done properly from the beginning.

[zerotolerance]

Your comment could have been, "I've never agreed with the design philosophy behind Go." I've always appreciated the apparent Go design philosophy and feel like it most matches my lessons learned from 20 years in software. Feature minimalism is a feature for languages targeting organizations with thousands of programmers. If by 21st century language, you mean one that has become unrecognizable through multiple generations of fashionable feature and ecosystem thrash then I'm all for Go not becoming a 21st century language. Language should be boring if the target environment is large teams with varied skill sets. Plain speak. Low jumpy behavior. No cream, no syntactic sugar. Get the job done.

[piekvorst]

“Done properly from the beginning” means explaining why a particular feature is either included or not. In this sense, Go is done properly from the beginning. It would be wrong to add every popular feature uncritically.

[pjmlp]

"They are likely the two most difficult parts of any design for parametric polymorphism. In retrospect, we were biased too much by experience with C++ without concepts and Java generics. We would have been well-served to spend more time with CLU and C++ concepts earlier."

Yeah very critically.

[piekvorst]

You can’t be omniscient, I think.

[pjmlp]

It is sufficient to actually care about history of programming languages design, acknowledge the paths trailed before since FORTRAN came up in 1958, no need for omnisciency.

Less "we know better", more "actual history".