I gave a reasoned argument and you responded with ad hominem. I don’t think it’s the “Go fans” who are toxic. We merely disagree, and that’s okay.

I‘m sure there are better reasons for people liking Go other than what you described. This reads like a general dismissal.

Nope, as a language Go adds nothing and sometimes feels like it gives even less.

Where Go has been a success is tooling. The tooling is pretty decent and helps a lot. But that could be added to pretty much any language ecosystem

Go apologist here. Go doesn't work because it adds something to existing languages, but because it keeps things away.

In 30 years time, Go codebases built today will still be around, while Java, Javascript, Scala or Ruby codebases will have been rebuilt multiple times over or removed entirely, because they drowned in their own complexity and their developers' own cleverness.

That said, for me it's not so much Go itself, but the mindset that comes with it of writing dumb and verbose but obvious code. I've reduced 15-line for loops into clever functional oneliners, but maybe all I needed was a `range` instead of a `for i = 0` style loop all along, because I need a lot more time and mental energy to understand the functional oneliner than a `for x in range` loop.

That’s a bit bold coming from a relatively young language, given that Java has codebases close to 25 years old.

Also, repeating the same code many times due to lack of expressiveness is not the epitome of long-lived software. Essential complexity is non-reducable, the only way we can deal with it is through abstractions.

Some of us were around when Java was young and can compare a 5yo Go codebase with a 5yo Java codebase :)

> Also, repeating the same code many times due to lack of expressiveness is not the epitome of long-lived software. Essential complexity is non-reducable, the only way we can deal with it is through abstractions

Repetition is not a big deal in a local context (e.g., error handling or for loops), and Go is rarely repetitive in larger contexts. Gratuitous abstraction is a much greater danger than extra keystrokes IMHO.

> But that could be added to pretty much any language ecosystem

Though it annoyingly is not. The profiling with integrated stack, line, and memory / alloc profiler seems especially nice.

Though it’s made progress (especially with the rise of flamegraph-type visualisation) the ecosystems I navigate seem to remain a hodge-podge of disparate tools.

I don't hate go for the language itself. I understand the point of using go, especially if you have a company with hundreds or thousands of software engineer. It is really good for building microservices, because to me the learning curve is not steep hence everybody who just learn it, could already make contributions to the codebase.

what I don't understand are the fans who are really trying to overglorify go as "language of the future" that could be a C replacement.