I think they actually make a fair point because in this case "hard to do" probably equates to "makes the compiler a lot slower".
Go is very easy to switch to from most other languages so I don't think making it harder to switch is a design goal from the team.
When Go came on the scene, I actually really appreciated the fact that they truly explored what a new language could do differently, especially because it was coupled with a strong philosophy.
Now, since 1.0 there have been plenty of decisions made which I dislike. Still, I think the glasses through which you choose look at the Go teams motive aren't fair. Why wouldn't designers of a programming language like Go think it through very carefully, weigh every angle and decide to settle on a lesser used but possible equally valid solution compared to 80% of the languages out there?
Go is very easy to switch to from most other languages so I don't think making it harder to switch is a design goal from the team.
When Go came on the scene, I actually really appreciated the fact that they truly explored what a new language could do differently, especially because it was coupled with a strong philosophy.
Now, since 1.0 there have been plenty of decisions made which I dislike. Still, I think the glasses through which you choose look at the Go teams motive aren't fair. Why wouldn't designers of a programming language like Go think it through very carefully, weigh every angle and decide to settle on a lesser used but possible equally valid solution compared to 80% of the languages out there?