Go is typical "hurr durr, Java an C# are obsolete" write-only code by people who only ever work on ephemeral greenfield projects with a lifetime of 3 months and therefore can tell exactly what software development is all about.
At their level of prestige they can kinda work on whatever they like instead of having to live through and slog through the kind of crap code that accumulates on a project where you have people far below their level working along side people only slightly below their level.
If you only ever work with fellow top performers, you never need the language and tool features that make it less to work with idiots.
> I'm legitimately curious if the comment owner knows who is part of the core team.
Yes, I know. And I know perfectly well that Go at its current immature state would never have gotten the kind of attention and consideration if it had not been designed by Mr. Pike. While I believe that many of the warts of Go are by design, some are obviously not.
Tell me then why Go is being used to drive so many big projects? Docker just raised another $95m for fucks sake. Why should I listen to you? What are your qualifications? Sell me on your position.
Good design = it gets shit done. I don't care for PHP syntax, but it gets shit done. Any definition of good design beyond that simple metric is pure masturbation.
Docker is written in Go and $95m is more validation than you'll get in ten lifetimes.
So you think that the ability to execute a large project successfully implies nothing about the quality of the tools used to implement the project? I disagree.
At no point have I made a relative statement about Go being better than another language. The only claim I would ever make is that Go is well designed and effective for certain tasks, as demonstrated by use (validated by investment, which we can accept if we assume rational investors -- not going to debate that).
Now the claim that started this was that Go authors are greenfield celebrity programmers and they don't spend their time in the trenches (as indicated by certain parts of the language that some people - usually from "enterprise" languages - don't like; heavily and unapologetically paraphrased). That statement is asinine when you consider the background of the authors and the projects they've been involved in over their collectively lengthy careers.
