I'll qualify this from my POV (which may be different than GP's).

Go's historic maintainability strong suit has been its simplicity and consistency. The syntax is, relatively speaking, lightweight, the language invites complexity through composition, and information density for any unit of code is typically quite low (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

In my opinion, though, these are all drawbacks, and Rust addresses all of them. It's syntactically and semantically much heavier, leading to its oft-maligned steep learning curve. It has, uniquely among the major languages, I think, a syntax for expressing variable lifetimes (with its own unintuitive semantics). It stuffs lots of abstraction into a hodgepodge of terse semantics and punctuation.

It sucks to read, until you get really used to it. Then it tends to read really quickly, and, at least for me, it's easier to reason about a conceptually-broad piece of logic if I don't have to jump between different locations in a file, a module, or a package to do it.

With Go, I find it more difficult to get into a flow state, and easier for my eyes to glaze over when looking over large diffs.

It's not lost on me that these are purely subjective arguments, though. My preference remains with Rust, and that goes back to before I used LLMs.

I'm also aware that Go is very prescriptive about how you write it; it's explicitly opinionated, and Rust doesn't have that. It means that most Go code bases will look more alike. I consider this an anti-feature; I believe code should be able to conform to the problem space or product and a good team will find the best way to do that.

For whatever reason, maybe not even logical ones, Go repulses me. I don't know why exactly, I like the idea of Go, but the aesthetics rub me wrong.

I think it's the use of pointers and "if err != nil {}" error handling spam. It reads as a highly compromised imitation of Python and C rather than a solid execution of some other idea.

Rust is not the most beautiful language out there but it doesn't trigger any such reaction for me. The ? operator and "match", which I use constantly, more than compensate for some of the sigil noise which I barely need to look at much less write most of the time. So Rust wins on that comparison for me.

The "func name() -> retval" syntax also grew on me. I like the fact that Python type annotations copied that approach, and C-style declarations look ugly to me now. Same with C-style /* */ comments.

It's a matter of expressiveness, Rust expresses more.

E.g. make a table that's 3x3 is easier to read (Go), but the equivalent line in Rust would also include material, angles, height, etc. because the type system encodes much more information.

Though I always found Go to be significantly harder to read than Rust. Sure Rust has some crazy syntax at the edges, but Go makes it very hard to know where imports come from (and thus what they do), and the imperative style + lack of clarity about mutability makes code much harder to reason about.

Counterpoint: I find Rust easier to read.

Might be unpopular, but agents write too much code for humans to read in any meaningful time frame. Using agents to generate code to then require humans to slowly consume it defeats a lot of the speed you gain from AI.

I my self and teams members are slowly reading less code and requiring agents to prove things work the way we want in other ways.

I have an agent read most of the code as well. The agent explains things to me in plain english.

The default sentiment is humans should read code it's more progressive and a leap of faith to start giving that up.

Obviously, I get why you feel humans still reading code is important, but if you look at the progress of AI for the past couple of years, that gap is closing. The trendlines speak of a future where it becomes less and less important.

This was exactly what happened with writing code. Now most people don't write code.