The Go modules ecosystem doesn't suffer from the squatting problem because they chose not to create a new vacant namespace, and the corresponding rush to fill it.
They easily could have. pkg.go.dev could be like npm. It's not a question of cost, google is paying for the infrastructure.
It seems that language creators generally get this false impression that if they are the one to create the new namespace, then it will be high quality, and the best packages will get the short de-facto names. Maybe a few of the packages they wrote themselves can get some of the first names.
That's never what happens. The wise solution is just to use DNS. We already have names, people pay for them, there is infrastructure for selling them, there is an auditable certificate system. A new package namespace won't have any of that.
They easily could have. pkg.go.dev could be like npm. It's not a question of cost, google is paying for the infrastructure.
It seems that language creators generally get this false impression that if they are the one to create the new namespace, then it will be high quality, and the best packages will get the short de-facto names. Maybe a few of the packages they wrote themselves can get some of the first names.
That's never what happens. The wise solution is just to use DNS. We already have names, people pay for them, there is infrastructure for selling them, there is an auditable certificate system. A new package namespace won't have any of that.