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

You shouldn't be offended that Rob Pike thinks he's a much more advanced programmer than your average programmer.

He is.

Whatever his motivations, he created a very productive language. As it turns out, even advanced programmers benefit from having a simple language when it comes to getting practical work done.

> As it turns out, even advanced programmers benefit from having a simple language when it comes to getting practical work done.

I'm making this point quite tongue in cheek however...

By that logic why do programmers hate Visual Basic so much? At least VB6 was very much a "simple language" relative to other things around at the time (less so with VB.net/C#).

A lot of the arguments people are making here (less is more essentially, and clear syntax wins over complexity even at the cost of efficiency) then VB6 should be something we're modelling modern languages off of, but it is not...

PS - Remember I am not being literal here. VB6 had some issues both then and now. I am not really comparing Go to VB6, I am comparing the arguments made in support of Go to arguments that could be made in support of VB6.

There's a difference between being "simple" and "brain-dead". C, for example, is very simple, simpler than Go, even, but you can't compare it to VB6 either. Your comparison is disingenuous at best.

Simplicity is a good thing. It's a virtue. It's part of what made UNIX a success. It's not something to shun or avoid.

Adding features adds complexity and complexity is not free.

Notice how the industry still has't jumped ship whole-sale to Haskell?