[donlzx]

IMO, there are two different opposite directions in programming languages and tools approaches,

1) The artistic approach which is very flexible and requires creative thinking and deep understanding of the essence of computing. However, you can easily shoot yourself with it. Languages of this type are for code guru, knights and hackers.

2) The engineering approach which has rigid rules for efficiency and social cooperation. It is less error-prone but tend to suppress diversity and discovery. Golang belongs to this category. To me, the core Go authors are more of engineers than artists :)

I use Go for work and simple command-line tools for myself. It is also great for cooperation in well defined scenarios, e.g., Web back-end service. When it comes to creative works, I'd rather avoid it.

[wiremine]

> To me, the core Go authors are more of engineers than artists

I thought the same thing. They are like the anti-Larry Wall.

[nulltype]

I guess that makes Go the inverse of Perl. I assume if a Perl programmer shakes hands with a Go programmer, they cancel each other out.

[vram22]

No, the Go programmer will win. Strong(ly) type(d), you see :) #SorryCouldntResist

Note: Said without any bias towards either Go or Perl.

Also, I'm not a language lawyer, and this was a joke, so I'm not replying to any comments about Go not being "purely" or "strictly" strongly typed or whatever.

[vram22]

Also, speaking of Perl, check out this (old) interview with Larry Wall:

http://jugad2.blogspot.in/2015/04/interview-linux-journal-wi...