“Go’s design is a disservice to intelligent programmers”

Just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you should spend all that intelligence trying to figure out other people's messes. Simplicity and explicitness are paramount when collaborating.

> Simplicity and explicitness are paramount when collaborating.

So is succinctness (most people can't speed read code). The examples he gives make Go look anything but succinct.

At a certain point succinctness does more harm than good. Go captures nearly all of the sense of python's early values (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/), without requiring all that much more in the way of boilerplate. So you have to if-check an error value here and there, no big deal. You should be handling errors anyway.

If Haskell's succinctness level is 1, then I would rate python's at 2, go's at 4, and java's at 20.

Presumably, that rating scales has higher numbers meaning less succinctness? Because otherwise the order of the numbers (much less there relative values) doesn't make any sense, even though that's kind of the opposite of what you'd expect of a "succinctness level".