[grepexdev]

I understand what you are saying here but I think you've missed the point of what Pike was getting at.

I think Pike is acknowledging the practical realities of engineering at scale, and intentionally designed Go with simplicity in mind, which leads to more maintainable code and faster onboarding for new devs.

I'll also add that outside of the popularity metric, Go is not all bad. Fast compile times, readability, excellent standard library and toolchain, backward compatibility, to name a few things.

[ninetyninenine]

>I think Pike is acknowledging the practical realities of engineering at scale, and intentionally designed Go with simplicity in mind, which leads to more maintainable code and faster onboarding for new devs.

Doubt it. Read what he wrote. He's literally referring to people without much experience in programming. The stuff you said is literally NOT what he said.

>I'll also add that outside of the popularity metric, Go is not all bad. Fast compile times, readability, excellent standard library and toolchain, backward compatibility, to name a few things.

I agree with readability and fast compile times.

[grepexdev]

Pike didn't write it, he said it. (1) It is a talk about how Go was created to make concurrency simple. The "brilliant" language he refers to here is C++, which I'm sure you're aware has many of its own downsides.

Your argument that Go is a step backward because it was intentionally designed to be simple for novice programmers seems flawed. It's design was a deliberate tradeoff to address a specific problem. While I don't think it is a language that should be used for everything, it is good at the things it is good at.

What is it about Go that you have a problem with, specifically?

1. Around the 20 minute mark: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/lang-next-2014/from-...