> I'm pretty sure that the designers of Go have more exposure to modern type theory than the modern-type theorists have experience with maintaining ten million lines of code for two decades.
See, the problem right here."Go designers know better than everybody else". No they don't. The standard library itself is totally inconsistent and goes against what Go designers themselves promoted as being idiomatic.
> The point of Go was not to be "up to date" on type theory.
Sure it's a dynamically typed language that mascarades itself as a statically typed one, a bit like C with its void pointers everywhere... Except it doesn't have C macros, which makes it even more painful to program than C.
Nobody claims that they know better than everybody else, that's just your words, which you then contradict without the slightest bit of evidence. Truth is, the Go developera have a proven track record over several decades, and that gives their ways of doing things certainly more weight than those of young whippersnappers who have never built several operating systems, programming languages, or other large and complex pieces of software.
See, the problem right here."Go designers know better than everybody else". No they don't. The standard library itself is totally inconsistent and goes against what Go designers themselves promoted as being idiomatic.
> The point of Go was not to be "up to date" on type theory.
Sure it's a dynamically typed language that mascarades itself as a statically typed one, a bit like C with its void pointers everywhere... Except it doesn't have C macros, which makes it even more painful to program than C.