Go is boring

I love static typed language. With a proper IDE, code navigation, completion work like magic. I end up doing less typing than the dynamic typed language.

Have you ever tried to auto complete the 'init' function in RubyMine? It will ask you which one of the 100 init functions do you mean. :)

Not with static typed language. There is only one init function to choose from because the IDE knows the exact type you are working with at all time.

This is largely spot-on. Of course, the author's assertion (that having all of these things in one place is novel) is incorrect for some programmers, but the sheer boringness of the language is a virtue. Go's features as bullet points are unimpressive; the set of features is the impressive part. Putting in features that are solidly understood, that are desirable, and that don't clash with each other make for a simple, solid, nice language.

I've tried without success to dig up an email from Linus Torvalds (on the LKML?) where, responding to an email complaining that a particular implementation of ARM does not breaking any interesting ground, he goes on a mini-tirade about the lack of appreciation for a simple thing done well. I think Go fits the description nicely.

I'm also starting to find that a language with static typing and generally an enforced structure is easier to deal with.

With dynamic languages, you have to hold a lot in your head. Having an enforced structure offloads some things off your brain so you have more mental space to think clearly and not panic or get burned.

I'd like to point out that I never heard of coroutines before Go. Not even in computer science; and I did take an Operating Systems course.

I also never seen any language doing interfaces like Go. Go does it just right. I find that this is pretty impressive as a feature on its own.

> Not even in computer science;

What did you specialize in? It's pretty easy to hit upon co-routines, if you have an interest in Scheme or even Haskell. But I can imagine, it's much harder if you are into, say, the innards of database schemas. (Just a random example.)