Why Go and Not Rust?

Not disagreeing with the sentiment, but I dislike the word "simple" used to describe languages, because it has two meanings: simple = "consists of few parts" and simple = "easy to use", and these are not the same. Certain things in Go are not easy (not simple), because Go has few language features (is simple). Go has definitely a lower barrier to entry and is very productive for certain size and complexity of a project. However, as you start pushing…

> This makes Go easy to learn and, even more importantly, it ensures that Go projects remain understandable even when growing in size. Do people actually find this to be true? Honest question. In my personal experience, as Go programs grow in size, they become increasingly unmaintainable. Avoiding abstraction and keeping everything explicit sounds great in theory, but what actually happens in a larger project is that they just become a mess. Functions start taking on seemingly-unrelated extra parameters just…

I still don't think Go is a good language. I had notable experience at Google and the following things constantly bugged me: - It was very difficult to read. When trying to review the code every detail was left out. While each line was simple it was hard to actually get the high-level picture of what code was doing. - Very error prone. Maybe it isn't C dangerous but "defaults are useful" is the breeding ground of bugs. The number…

Neither languages are my favorites, but between the two, I'll take Go any day of the week. I don't think either has enough technical advantage over the other to make me prefer one on technical grounds, so for me it's just about how much I enjoy working in the language, and I strongly dislike Rust.