In fact, in pretty much every thread go turns up in. sigh I'm just going to link to my favourite review now, again (pertinent, and mentioned here only because the author of the original shared a favourite with me):
http://www.math.bas.bg/bantchev/misc/on-go.html
Quote: "But I know I am not going to love Go. True beauty evades this language. Go may be practical, but is also eclectic, and has taken some unconvincing or downright ugly design choices. It definitely lacks that subtle but unmistakable touch of elegance that makes a language great."
I'm not sure how to take that review given that his two main complaints seem to be:
1) That Go has i++ and not ++i. Don't even know what to say to someone who thinks this a major issue, really.
2) That the declaration syntax is 'unattractive' and different from other languages. Yes, the syntax looks a bit strange at first if you are used to C, but it is unquestionably cleaner and better, specially in more complex declarations. This is even covered in the FAQ: http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#declarations_backwards
His other complaints seem to be about the name of the language and how much some of the Go documentation acknowledges the influences of certain languages, which as he himself says, is just politics and not really relevant to the language itself.
At the same time there seems to be plenty of people who actually have used Go and love it, including the designers of other languages:
In fact, in pretty much every thread go turns up in. sigh I'm just going to link to my favourite review now, again (pertinent, and mentioned here only because the author of the original shared a favourite with me): http://www.math.bas.bg/bantchev/misc/on-go.html
Quote: "But I know I am not going to love Go. True beauty evades this language. Go may be practical, but is also eclectic, and has taken some unconvincing or downright ugly design choices. It definitely lacks that subtle but unmistakable touch of elegance that makes a language great."