Go is still not good

>>ustad+(OP)
Go has problems, sure. But I’ve yet to see a hit piece on Go that actually holds up to real scrutiny.

Usually, as here, objections to go take the form a technically-correct-but-ultimately-pedantic arguments.

The positives of go are so overwhelmingly high magnitude that all those small things basically don’t matter enough to abandon the language.

Go is good enough to justify using it now while waiting for the slow-but-steady stream of improvements from version to version to make life better.

>>abtinf+Qu
Yep, most of what the author complains about are trivial issues you could find in any language. For contrast, some real, deep-rooted language design problems with Go are:

- Zero values, lack of support for constructors

- Poor handling of null

- Mutability by default

- A static type system not designed with generics in mind

- `int` is not arbitrary precision [1]

- The built-in array type (slices) has poorly considered ownership semantics [2]

Notable mentions:

- No sum types

- No string interpolation

[1]: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19623

[2]: >>39477821

zlacker