> What makes you choose Go over C#/Java for medium projects?

Because I said:

>> C# and Java are also getting a bit too complicated for my tastes too.

I abhor complications.

> And why not go for the large projects?

Because I said:

>> where I work with others, C# and Java seem to hit the sweet spot

Yeah yeah, I know it sounds like I am whining (Maybe I am :-), but at least I am complaining about all of them.

Java and C# do appear to have been battle-tested for very large projects that aren't microservices.

Go? I dunno. I've only ever seen very large projects in Go using microservices. I like its simplicity.

My main complaint is that programming languages have too much minutiae to track that I really shouldn't have to be tracking.

Take, for example, asynchronous builtins:

Why are all the explanations wrapped in jargon that only an expert in the language would grok immediately? Promises? Futures? You gotta explain those, with examples, before you can explain what to do with a value from an async call. Go look at the popular introductions to async (say, on MDN for js, or Microsoft for C#, etc) and count how many times they have to explain something because of their leaky abstraction implementation rather than explaining the concept.

How about simply saying "calling async functions only schedules the function for later execution, it doesn't execute it".

That naturally leads into "So you need to check if it is finished using an identifier to identify which scheduled call you want to check"...

Which itself naturally leads to "The identifier you need was given to you when you scheduled the call"...

Which leads to "Using that identifier from `id = foo();`, you wait for the result like this: `result = id.wait()`".

You can even add "You can return that id, or pass it around so some other code can do `id.wait()`".

Now they don't explain it this way, because their implementation(s) is more of a leaky abstraction exposing irrelevant information about the compiler, than of a straightforward implementation of the concept. They are unable to separate the concept from their implementation.

The common implementation of async is so counterintuitive that they have to explain their particular implementation instead of the concept, because it has almost nothing to do with the concept. If they just explained the concept, programmers would still be confused because the implementation needs things like colored functions just to work poorly.

The concept of scheduled functions (which may return once, or may yield multiple times before returning), which is a simple path to understanding asynchronous calls, is completely divorced from the implementation which will produce errors like "cannot call asynchronous function from a top level"[1] or "cannot call await in a function not declared as async".[2]

So, yeah, I'm kinda upset at how programming has evolved over the years (I wrote my first program in 1986, so had a good seat for the later part of this particular movie), from "simple and straightforward", to "complex for complexities sake".

[1] Why? Because their abstraction is an abstraction of their implementation, and not an abstraction of asynchronous calls.

[2] Se [1] above.