It’s designed for people who don’t have much experience with programming. He literally said this. There is nothing said about coq or lean... that’s just trolling.
> It’s designed for people who don’t have much experience with programming.
Exactly. It follows the same basic "loop, variable, function" programming model as Java, C++, Haskell, PHP, Ruby, Rust, Python, LISP, Smalltalk, basically every language you've seen production code written in, that is familiar to early career beginners who have come out of traditional learning paths (e.g. college). Where once you understand one of them, you can jump into another with minimal overhead. None of these languages brilliant, but they are useful. Which is where he said they wanted Go to fit as well: A language that is useful and familiar.
That isn't what researchers and language theory enthusiasts want. They are enthralled by languages that think about programming in an entirely different way. The key point here is that it wasn't built for them. That is what he said.
That’s a stretch. Your saying he called golang not brilliant then you say basically every language from Haskell to Java is also not brilliant. Let’s be real here.
You also talk about looping for languages with no loops. And additionally pike never brought up looping at all. You just made this part up out of thin air. Your evidence is made up. He never said or referenced any of things you said.
> The key point here is that it wasn't built for them. That is what he said.
No read what he said again. He didn’t say golang was not designed for language experts. He did say it was designed for programmers just out of school with barely any experience with programming languages. He did not say he designed golang for an average engineeer who is not a PL expert he said he designed golang for literally people just out of school.
I don’t know how you can make stuff up out of thin air like this. Read what he literally said.
