> First of all it’s not just an issue of maintaining the language itself, but all of the associated tooling as well. Which is part of the language core, and di

> First of all it’s not just an issue of maintaining the language itself, but all of the associated tooling as well. Which is part of the language core, and distributed alongside it. > Google could choose to prioritize their own needs over the rest of the community. Which they would do why, and how specifically? This isn't a server or a database, it's a PL. What specific scenario do you see for such a change? And even in that unlikely scenario, the language is open source, and the community can fork it. > Go advocates say this often enough that it’s honestly beginning to come off as an insecurity. How anyone choses to interpret this message, is their business. We say it because it's true. > And I would be concerned about cultivating a community around “less is more Why? It seems to work exceedingly well. And there are more than enough languages following the "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" approach already. What benefit would there be in trying to secure a tiny portion of a niche that is already overfilled? > that the primary selling point of Go were goroutines They were one of the selling points. What anyone sees as "the primary" point is a matter of opinion. For many people, the primary selling point of Go is the simplicity of the language. > Fast forward to today and Go has become a significantly less compelling option. Really? What other mainstream language uses CSPs with the same syntactic ease and core-language support? > Anyway, as I see it, golang is basically a dead end as a PL. What data specifically supports that point of view? Because, going by usage metrics, like code contributed, Go is easily among the most used languages, and still growing. If you have different metrics, please, do share them here.