[Joky]

please, enlighten me :)

[jakevn]

For better or worse, Go's design is anything but modern.

It lacks things such as immutability and generics. It also perpetuates the mistake of including a run-time type error, null (nil).

[tomp]

More precisely, Go has generics (along with overloading), they are just not available to users of the language.

[Joky]

Note that modern does not mean perfect. I'm not sure you answer could not fall into the "this-language-lacks-my-favorite-cool-fancy-feature-so-it-is-necessarily-an-old-fashioned-crappy-piece-of-s*" syndrome?

[jakevn]

Were they actually fancy or cool, maybe. They're rather basic features among statically typed languages.

Also, I'm not trying to say Go is bad or that I dislike it. It's simply not a modern language as far as design goes.

[masklinn]

That it might have deserved the moniker if it had been released around the same time as java.

[coldtea]

Make that a few decades before actually:

http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/

[masklinn]

Well it does have a structural type system (one of the few other languages with one being OCaml, '96), a GC (popularised/made acceptable by Java '95) and provides language-level support for CSP (Occam '83)

[Joky]

Thanks for the link, that was very interesting to read! I didn't know Algol (I knew the name and how "historical" it is but not the details).

[twic]

Hadn't seen this before. This is brilliant. Thanks.

So, who's up for an Algol-15 project?