That attitude is why I never bothered to learn it. Shortly after its 1.0 release, there were a bunch of "here's the good and bad about Go" posts. I remember seeing a post by Rob Pike on reddit where he said he was tired of people being on the fence about Go, and if they don't love it, they should just learn something else. That kind of "love it or leave it" attitude was prevalent everywhere, and it was a big turn off. It felt like instead of Go being designed as a tool for programmers to use, programmers were the tool, and Go was designed as a way to change them so they'd be better at what Google wants.
Golang chooses to avoid feature creep. This seems to annoy some people to no end and so these discussions always devolve into whining about feature X, Y or Z that would have made Golang soooo much better and OH how nasty are [Google or whomever] that blocks all these fantastic ideas from being implemented. If only they listened to all the smart people out there (especially me) it would have made Golang awesome and we'd see a million flowers bloom. Please stop, it's tiresome.
I know. Go was born perfect. That anyone might like Go but think it could be better by changing it disgusts me too! All you whiners -- if you like Go but think it could be made better then please use another language.
That might be how you “feel” but it doesn’t reflect the facts. The go community has been incredibly welcoming, the process for introducing new features in go is fully transparent and in the open.
If you link to the reddit post we could all see what he actually said. Go is a very opinionated language for sure. Every language will be inundated with people who want their pet feature to be implemented in it and will hate on it otherwise. I am happy that the language development is not directed by such kinds of folks.
Well... Go is a language that wants to be something specific, rather than be something for everyone. That means that some suggestions just don't fit, not because they're hard to implement, but because they're wrong for the language. It is very appropriate for the language designers to say "If that's what you want, then you don't want Go. There are other languages that fit what you want better; go find one and use that." That's completely reasonable and proper.
It's also possible for the language designers to say the exact same words, and be ignoring real problems with the language - problems that could be fixed within the spirit of the language.
If you go to the Haskell people and say "This language would be so much more usable by so many more people with an Algol-like syntax", they're not going to listen to your helpful suggestion. What you're asking for is something that would not be Haskell. But to those asking, they think it's a perfectly reasonable request.
I don't have a great example of the second kind, because languages with those kinds of designers typically die early.
