I don't know why you speak in the past tense, but I consider Go still not being "innovative" enough and also broken by design. We'll talk in about 2 years from now when they'll finally add generics to the language, in a broken way nonetheless, as generics do have to be baked in right from the start to pull it off. And it badly needs generics.
But you see, Go got all this attention just because it is a language released by Google. And in the meantime version 2.0 of a real systems programming language that is innovative and kick-ass is largely going unnoticed.
FWIW I actually agree about the generics, both that Go needs them and that bolting them on afterwards typically doesn't work as well as having them from the start. But in general I wouldn't call it "broken" and view being "not innovative enough" as a feature for a systems language.
Everyone I know who has actually used Go strongly disagrees with this claim, they are very happy with Go's interface system and most of them don't notice the lack of generics at all.
Go is not like other languages, and 'features' are not interchangeable across languages.
> But you see, Go got all this attention just because it is a language released by Google.
Yea, that it was created by Ken Thompson and Rob Pike had absolutely nothing to do with it. /a
But you see, Go got all this attention just because it is a language released by Google. And in the meantime version 2.0 of a real systems programming language that is innovative and kick-ass is largely going unnoticed.