Another thing Python and Go unfortunately have in common is a community (not necessarily core developers) with knee-jerk reactions to any criticism.
> go: tends to wait and implement something once the problem is understood.
Go's modules provide no additional "understanding" over any of the other Bundler-derived solutions in the world. MVS was the primary innovation, but wanting checksum validation means I have to track all the same data anyway.
> took 2 years after go maintainers decided to solve the dependency issues
This is revisionist history. There were other official "solutions" before ("you don't need it", "vgo is good enough", and "we'll follow community decisions"). If this one sticks, it's fine. But you can't say it's good now just because it's the one we have now - it's good now if it's the one we still manage to have in five years.
Go's track record is not "good" (in that regard I think only Cargo qualifies). At best it's "mercifully short."
> and honestly the proxy issues were not real.
Documentation was poor, the needed flags changed shortly before release, the design risks information leaks, and the entire system should not have been on by default for at least one more minor version.
> python is how old now? couple decades? and it has only gotten worse over time.
Yeah, that's exactly why I said "Python just looks worse right now because it's been around longer." It hasn't gotten worse though, it just also hasn't stopped churning. And if Go doesn't stop churning, in 10 years it will look the same.
The age argument works both ways - multiple major versions of Python predate Bundler. Go has no excuse for taking so long to reinvent "Bundler with incidentals", just like every other language.