> I find it worrying that Go is seemingly entirely stewarded by a company whose technical workflow is so different, to the extent that it curtails technical decisions. It's designing for the lowest common denominator in an equation that emphasizes Google.
There are thousands of programming languages out there, yet Go has quite a bit of traction. They haven't forced anyone to use it, so there must be some reason for that. Maybe Go is successful because it was made with Google's technical workflow in mind.
> Maybe Go is successful because it was made with Google's technical workflow in mind
Sure, but Dart has a fully featured package manager, are you saying Dart was designed at Google without Google's technical workflow in mind? It's silly.
> There are thousands of programming languages out there,
More like hundreds of viable programming languages, not thousands. Anybody can code a lisp in his bedroom,doesn't mean it's production ready.
> They haven't forced anyone to use it
It's a childish and arrogant statement. Just like the "You don't need that in Go"TM. Opening source something was a political decision, but if you're saying Go doesn't need a community then by all means, state it clearly.
There are thousands of programming languages out there, yet Go has quite a bit of traction. They haven't forced anyone to use it, so there must be some reason for that. Maybe Go is successful because it was made with Google's technical workflow in mind.