/prog/s opinion on Go

You know, the google thing.  Personally I'm a bit excited for a compiled python-like C language.  It's going to take for fucking ever for it to become useful, though, especially with google's slow and steady attitude.  I could see it catching on though kind of like python did.

Full type inference;
A macro system;
Type operators;
These were rejected as problematic. Part of the goal is unambiguous code.

Parametric polymorphism, a.k.a. generics;
Exception handling or, even better, continuations;
To reiterate from earlier in the thread, the language design is not complete. These are two items that are being discussed and the question on both of them seems to be more one of "how" than of "if".

Generics are a non-issue to me. Interfaces are pretty alright. Ideally, exceptions would be made more or less irrelevant. I'm glad they didn't just tack on nonsense facilities for these items, because it would really make a mess of things.

NO null/nil construct. Seriously, that shit's not necessary in this day and age.
What's the problem? No really, I'd like to know.

Closures are, agreed, a great thing to have. The CSP falls a bit short for me on a few miscellaneous points.

The few changes that were made to the standby feature sets produces a greater change than incremental change, there's a minor paradigm shift involved.

There are a lot of rough edges, but the complaints that "excluded feature X is missing" are only made by people who don't use the language. For those who do, there are still complaints, mostly "included feature Y comes up short." This reflects the paradigm shift, and a proper attitude to working assessing the language: don't hate what makes it different, hate what makes it insufficient.

>>104
Null considered harmful?  I am curious, please explain sir

I want to know what's wrong with null values too.  The only problem with null values is when it isn't handled very well.