In my opinion, any new language today should be all beginner friendly, there are large pool of people who are interested and it means a great future of our world.
I disagree. I think any new language should be designed to best meet the kind of problem it's being created to deal with. Making it "beginner friendly" (whatever that means - I bet there are lots of different interpretations) is a nice extra, but should not come at the expense of solving the problems.
That makes no sense to me. In any industry with a sizeable number of workers, there is a huge range of tools, from the entry level easy-to-use up to the fantastically intricate and arcane. Tools that are not "beginner friendly" are that way for a reason.
As an example, assembly code is never going away; for the obvious reason that if nobody understands it, nobody can write compilers, and also because there are cases where knowing assembly is useful and helps to make better code, whether it's taking apart the code to really, truly get every last clock-cycle of power out of the thing, or to take apart code in the search for arcane bugs and wonderfully subtle interactions causing unexpected behaviour. Assembly is old, and will never go away, and is (for most meanings of the phrase) not beginner-friendly.
The only advantage to a language being "beginner friendly" is that beginners can learn it fast. What you then get are inexperienced programmers who know just enough to be dangerous (this is not an attack on them; it's the case in any industry with a low barrier to entry, and a stepping stone to being better). One expert, experienced programmer with knowledge of a "beginner unfriendly" language is worth literally dozens of first-day coders wielding their hand-holding, garbage-collecting, counting-begins-at-one modern version of BASIC. That is never going to change, and every first-day coder wants to become that expert.
Even if somehow all the non-"beginner friendly" languages died, the very next day someone who'd been coding in this "beginner friendly" language for a decade would finally get sick of it and start designing a language she can truly express herself in without having all the hand-holding that holds her back.
If you mean someone that is a programmer and hasn't used go before, I can tell you I went from "never having seen Go before" to "reasonably proficient" inside of two months. Further, my Go code is easier to read and maintain than anything I've done in other languages. (I came largely from Java, so maybe that's not saying much.)
I think that for beginners of either kind, the documentation and community support are just as important as the language itself. I mean, look at something like JavaScript, which is picked up by "beginners" all the time and is, frankly, obtuse as hell. Go has great docs and a really friendly and helpful community.
If you want to launch a career as a systems programmer, which is a fundamentally different goal, then yes, you should learn C, even if you end up using other things.
> smaller than most languages around