agent

ns in Go and calling it the next Node.js or Ruby or Python and frankly this is just stupid. Despite some claims it has nowhere near the expressive power of those languages. It is statically typed but has no Generics - and there are quite a few use cases where there is no answer(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/PYJayE50...) and you will just have duplicate code. It polymorphism but no inheritance - and the way interfaces and composition works while still fairly powerful is not at all what an OO programmer would expect(http://xampl.com/so/category/software/golang/) just naively reading about this feature. Whatever you want to say about the benefits of simplicity, this is LESS powerful than any OO dynamic language. Go's closures are nice, but aside from that on what basis can any other claims be made about its expressive power? In fact, the language is intentionally very, very limited. They want large teams of mediocre programmers [1] to produce code that is very supportable. Everytime someone in the lists brings up a "why don't we have" question all the answers revolve around this premise, that the language becomes "too complicated" if you have crazy features like generics. So it seems Go is optimized to satisfy the angst of systems programmers who have to work on C code that is thirty years old and been maintained by dozens of people. I get it, but that doesn't mean its really a good language for hackers to use to build the latest social network for people who like cats. Ok so concurrency. Yes Goroutines are smart. Channels are smart. These are great features. Scala can do the same thing (and more elegantly) with it's Actor constructs. The same thing can probably be done in other languages such as Ruby (https://github.com/igrigorik/agent). Its nice that this feature is in Go from the beginning, but its going to make its way into other platforms as well. Performance. Well...lots of blog articles just keep repeating the mantra of "native code" as though it automatically means something. It doesn't. C isn't just fast because it generates native code, it is fast because it's compiler has been optimized for decades. Go doesn't have that today. In fact today, Go is slower than Java and Scala based on both Google's benchmarks (http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/06/cpp-go-java-scala-p...) and the language shootout (http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-lang...). Go will get there almost certainly, or at least very close, but it isn't there today. Today if you want a static, fast language with good concurrency and an incredible standard library and extended library ecosystem then you want Scala I think. If you want a powerful, expressive language for quickly building web applications then you want Python, Ruby[2] or Node.js or similar. If you want a language is actually very fast and with incredible libraries you want C/C++. I really do not hate Go. But it is not yet ready to replace hardly anything in my opinion. edit: [1]You are right. The "mediocre programmer" comment is really out of line and a major distraction. I guess I actually think this IS a feature of Go: more maintainable code than C/C++ from mediocre developers. I'm bitter and tired ofdebugging twenty-year old C programs and I wish they were all written in Go. I shouldn't read that into Thompson's or Pike's intentions though. [2]May brain stopped working here - I meant Ruby not Java.