And when you read something like "Effective C++", you learn to appreciate (or pity) developers who have to keep that much information in their heads in order to code. I personally gave up on it years ago and went over to C, but I like to keep up-to-date with what is going on in that world.
As a fan of minimalism over complexity, I like the idea, but I can't help but wonder if three of the world's best programmers are the best qualified to decide what programmers in general need. For example, if you can dash off a correct, performant, and theoretically sound version of a data structure in a couple dozen lines of code and 15 minutes, I bet generics seem much less useful.
However, I do prefer that to designing to the lowest common denominator.
If you want something to last, you've got to fight to keep it from rotting under the weight of its own design. The less design, the more easily it can adapt to change.
Ingrained in the Go project is the philosophy that things are always worth fixing, no matter how small. I don't think the value of this idea can be overstated.
Could the next person who interviews Ken please ask him what he has against ending words with "e"? I wonder if there is an interesting story behind that.
His reply: "I'd spell creat with an e."
He got his chance with Go... when he added the O_CREATE symbol (an alias for O_CREAT) his comment was:
spell it with an "e"
(Geoff Collyer later added 64bit support: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/2nd_edition/papers/fs and eventually Bell Labs replaced kenfs with Fossil: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/fossil/ although some members of the Plan 9 community still prefer the simplicity of kenfs)