[pseudonom-]

Probably quotes like:

"It must be familiar, roughly C-like. Programmers working at Google are early in their careers and are most familiar with procedural languages, particularly from the C family. The need to get programmers productive quickly in a new language means that the language cannot be too radical."

And not including sum types despite having a sum-type-shaped hole in the language (`if err != nil`).

And some of the discussion about "why no generics" seemed kind of divorced from existing PL knowledge on the topic.

[tensor]

These were all intentional tradeoffs though, not any ignorance of theory. Also, it's pretty rich for someone to be complaining about Go while referencing Javascript of all languages. Javascript's design flaws are legendary. And I mean no disrespect to the creators of Javascript, they had to deal with some crazy last minute change requests to the language.

[TwentyPosts]

Ehhh, I see absolutely no evidence that the Go developers were particularly aware of theory. It really feels more like they just were used to thinking in terms of C, and built a language which is kind of like C.

Go also has some really weird stuff in it, such as named return values.

Frankly, the lack of sum types hurts the most. The language would just be a lot better with a unifying Result type in the library. And don't give me any of that "oh, they tried to keep the language simple!" stuff.

Intuitively, sum types are laughably simple. Everyone understands "It's one of these possible values, so you need to check which one it is and then handle that situation." They are more simple than enums on a conceptual level! Sum types are just not how C-programmers think about the world.

[kaba0]

With all the crazy warts that JS has, it is at least a lisp-like very dynamic language if you squint (a lot) at it. Its greatest fault is probably leaving out integers (I can’t even fathom why they decided on that, floats can’t represent properly ints).

Go is just simply badly designed, relying on hard-coded functionality a lot.