alt Hacker News> If you give someone the ability to understand a brilliant language, they will turn their attention to the language and away from the problem. That's just human nature.
Not sure which languages you define as brilliant but I’ve never seen this pattern anywhere in my career, in any language. Including Rust, which is often offered by Go fans as an example of an esoteric exotic language.
In everywhere I’ve seen, people are focused on solving some engineering problem, not on showing off their brilliance by solving language puzzles.
This defense of Go is REALLY common but as far as I can tell is purely based on myth.
> I’ve never seen this pattern anywhere in my career
Me neither, but I've never actually tired to look. In honesty, have you? It is not exactly to the faint of heart to study. I suspect only Google is willing to go to the necessary depts. But, if you know of something otherwise, I'm sure we're all interested in the details.
> This defense of Go is REALLY common but as far as I can tell is purely based on myth.
1. Defence? Are you in some kind of fight...? That doesn't make any sense.
2. Myth? Are you confusing the hypothesis on which Go was built with results of experimentation? It very well may be that the hypothesis didn't stand up to experimentation, but what does that have to with our discussion? Furthermore, if you really want to change the subject to talk about that, why have you failed to tell us anything about the details of experimentation?