> I think I would say overall that I like the idea of Go better than I like Go itself. I like the idea of a simple language

Agree.

I'm new to GO, and I keep bumping into language issues that upon further inspection where unilateral "opinionated choices" made by some secretive cabal. Don't get me wrong, I see plenty of public discussion, but ultimately some core GO team person abruptly closes the issues. Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit, but there have been several times I've tracked an issue report to find the issue closed without sufficient discussion.

For example, The whole thing with exported vs unexplored things using the uppercase first character. This is both brilliant, and simultaneously prejudicial. The brilliant part is one need only to look at a variable's name to understand it's exported, rather than exhaustively searching for the declaration where something like "exported" reserved word was used... Instead the first character carries that information. But... many languages do not have the concept of upper/lower case...

Or the related issue of variables declarations or aliases having to be a Unicode "letter", and the designations of Unicode letters being narrowly defined in ways that prevent folks using their native language. To elaborate, that means there is no possibility to write GO in a world language like Chinese, Japaneses, Arabic, Hindi, Russian, etc.. The language must have the properties of 1) being letters, not having any non-letter modifiers, and having upper case letters.

The problem is many languages have funky characters that are technically symbols (not letters) in Unicode, but are used in combination with Unicode letters to modify the meaning of a word. Similar to accents, or whatever hats go above some Latin characters, other languages have a whole other symbol left or right of the character to do similar things. But variables may only contain "letters".

So to rephrase this issue, GO is an English programming language, which ironic because one of it's creators was purportedly one of the people involved with creating UTF-8 as a replacement for ASCII, and yet GO is saddled with issues similar to how ASCII limited C way back in the days. So it's like these neck-beards propagated their biases and prejudices into the GO language.

Another criticism I've got pertains to GO's understanding of numbers. I'm so tired of numbers being an emergent property of the underlying hardware architecture. You know, when we went from 16bit to 32bit, and again from 32bit to 64bit... GO has perpetuated the silly idea of tying number types to the underlying architecture hardware architecture, and that has silly effects on writing portable software. In the year 2008 (GO's approximate inception) or the year 2022 it's entirely feasible to have numbers mean one thing always, and the runtime does the needful to ensure that number just works with respect to the underlying hardware. In your lifetime, there is a very real chance we may see the emergence of 128bit architectures, if anything for the expanded arithmetic,or expanded register size, less so for the absurdly huge memory address space. But now we are locked in to how GO was conceived at it's inception....

I would really like to use a language like the idea of GO, but not GO itself. It's seem s evident GO will not break the compatibility promise/contract to improve the lang or reverse bad choices, and the utterly brilliant people designing & implementing GO apparently hold bad opinions. I've seen this before in so-called meritocracies, you tend to see brilliant ass-holes fizzle to the top. Don't get wrong, nobody on the CO core team is an ass-hole, I'm obviously exaggerating to convey my point... it's a variation of reduction-absurdum fallacy.