@brainblasted@crab.garden In their defense: the whole language is a (over) reaction to languages in the 90s (like C++) having every feature under the sun and becoming incredibly complex and brittle for it. I think the exercise of trying to make a minimalist language that is still useful is a valid one, but I don't like the specific choice Go made. But if you're making a language where you're supposed to write a lot of mutable code and it's simple I can see why you end up with their choices (and some of them are almost uniquely good, like their take on structural typing and interfaces). Anyway, as much as I love simple languages (Gleam is one that is similarly simple as Go, but IMO makes better choices) I fear that this focus on simplicity often forces them to make awkward choices like the one you're frustrated by. (Sorry for wall of text, I just find this very interesting!)