> I like Google's strategy of having the simplest language that anybody can pickup as fast as possible. Go.
And then you lose 50k whenever the app crashes in production because someone forgot a nil/err check and your tests didn't catch it. Or you pay extra 50k whenever the whole team needs to spend a week on finding a race condition caused by someone accidentally mutating a shared slice, 20 layers below the place the corruption was seen for the first time. Or you spend extra 50k over the year for fixing all the resource leaks caused by missing defers. Or you spend 50x50k to rewrite everything in a more performant stack because of GC pauses (Discord) ;).
There are multiple ways a project can fail or add unexpected costs, and likely there's no silver bullet. There are trade-offs.
And, btw, as for simplicity, there are dozens of languages easier to learn than Go. E.g. scratch, basic, brainfuck. Why not use them? ;)
Simplicity of a language has it costs. Programs written in simpler languages tend to be more complex to compensate for lower expressive power.
And then you lose 50k whenever the app crashes in production because someone forgot a nil/err check and your tests didn't catch it. Or you pay extra 50k whenever the whole team needs to spend a week on finding a race condition caused by someone accidentally mutating a shared slice, 20 layers below the place the corruption was seen for the first time. Or you spend extra 50k over the year for fixing all the resource leaks caused by missing defers. Or you spend 50x50k to rewrite everything in a more performant stack because of GC pauses (Discord) ;).
There are multiple ways a project can fail or add unexpected costs, and likely there's no silver bullet. There are trade-offs.
And, btw, as for simplicity, there are dozens of languages easier to learn than Go. E.g. scratch, basic, brainfuck. Why not use them? ;)
Simplicity of a language has it costs. Programs written in simpler languages tend to be more complex to compensate for lower expressive power.