I Don’t Much Get GO

While I don't exactly agree with his general assessment of C# as a language, I'm more baffled by the fact that he doesn't seem to get that Go is supposed to be a systems-level programming language, which precludes any virtual machine. It's not meant to replace C++/Java/C# as a language to build large enterprise systems/GUIs, but C/C++ as server/OS-level implementation languages. The sweet spot is a bit different.

There are many fundamental errors about Go in the article: the := operator distinguishes declare and assign from pure assignment, not assignment from equality as the author states. Pointers in Go do not make the language unsafe. Pointers in Go do not relegate automatic memory management to a "supposed" feature. Goroutines are not the same thing as threads. The lack of implicit "this" in methods does not make methods a low value add feature over static functions.

There are several more errors in the article. Read it with caution.

Go is not a language to write a massive enterprise level program in. It's meant to be used at the system level, and it excels at that. He was right, he really doesn't "get" Go.

Also, he's clearly in the "zero-sum game" camp -- I like the "let a thousand flowers bloom" notion myself. If there's anything to Go, it will eventually become widely used. If not, ... it may at least influence the development of another language. We've pretty much entered the Cambrian Explosion of language design anyway, and what's wrong with that?