> What realistic contender doesn't have all the same general features as Go? It doesn't exactly have many to choose from, none of them particularly esoteric, and most of them bare necessities required of any language.
I would say structural typing is very "esoteric" for most strongly typed languages actually, but this is not a problem.
And proceeding, the implications of your response is very strange. See, your point is essentially saying that "we should use Go, because it entails writting in only one idiom, and writing in languages that enables you to do more idioms -- more powerful languages -- is bad faith to other developers", but Hejlsberg himself said he chose go because of specific characteristics of the compiler that was already written, not because it is "the ideal one for every single prospect", while your point has implications that are absolutely more general. So I don't think he would agree with you that this was his reasoning for using go (the "don't have other idioms" thing), I also don't think this whole "more idioms" thing even make sense, but this is not needed to respond to this.
> Hejlsberg himself said he chose go because of specific characteristics of the compiler
He did, but much more importantly Cavanaugh said that he chose Go because of it having similar semantics and code structure. In other words, idiomatic Go is similar to how the original code was written. While I am sure Hejlsberg's input was icing on the cake, it was the not the ultimate determinator. C# having the best compiler in the world on every front still wouldn't have ticked the boxes the guy in charge needed to tick.
> So I don't think he would agree with you that this was his reasoning for using go
He may not, but it also wasn't his choice in the end anyway, so its a bit strange that you are leaning on his word.
I would say structural typing is very "esoteric" for most strongly typed languages actually, but this is not a problem.
And proceeding, the implications of your response is very strange. See, your point is essentially saying that "we should use Go, because it entails writting in only one idiom, and writing in languages that enables you to do more idioms -- more powerful languages -- is bad faith to other developers", but Hejlsberg himself said he chose go because of specific characteristics of the compiler that was already written, not because it is "the ideal one for every single prospect", while your point has implications that are absolutely more general. So I don't think he would agree with you that this was his reasoning for using go (the "don't have other idioms" thing), I also don't think this whole "more idioms" thing even make sense, but this is not needed to respond to this.