Well, to go off-topic with you, the idea that Go "ignores decades of language theory" is just an opinion that you hold. A factual statement would be to say that the Go designers
omitted a great many features other languages have included.
The idea that they did so out of ignorance is ridiculous, given the background of the Go design team. They made considered decisions about what to include in Go.
A fixed-gear bicycle is not "ignoring" decades of bicycle design theory.
Creating a programming language is an engineering task not a theoretical task. Which means there are major trade-offs to be made. And they chose their trade-offs. The wild success of Go should at least make you consider whether or not they're better at making these trade-offs than you, and most language designers, are.
Maybe they were wrong about some choices, which is why Go is still evolving, but they were self-evidently mostly correct.
The idea that they did so out of ignorance is ridiculous, given the background of the Go design team. They made considered decisions about what to include in Go.
A fixed-gear bicycle is not "ignoring" decades of bicycle design theory.
Creating a programming language is an engineering task not a theoretical task. Which means there are major trade-offs to be made. And they chose their trade-offs. The wild success of Go should at least make you consider whether or not they're better at making these trade-offs than you, and most language designers, are.
Maybe they were wrong about some choices, which is why Go is still evolving, but they were self-evidently mostly correct.