Interesting quote. But since Go is meant to be a "systems language", and the (only?) others are C and C++, which first appeared in 1972 and 1983 respectively, I can confidently assert that "modern language design techniques" are not all they're cracked up to be.
Moreover, I care not one whit that Google looks "really bad and unattractive to programming language researchers"; because I'm not one.
Some people have used OCaml for systems work, and it's a lot more "advanced" in a programming language theory sense. BitC also looks more ambitious than Go.
That's the problem with designing and implementing an ambitious programming language: it's harder. Which is one of the reasons that Go is being used to develop real applications. I don't think the same thing can be said for BitC.
> Which is one of the reasons that Go is being used to develop real applications. I don't think the same thing can be said for BitC.
Until BitC author claims that it is used for real applications. Has anyone outside of the Go team mentioned any use of Go in real applications? Please correct me if I am wrong, but at the moment Go, BitC and Rust are all experimental systems programing languages.
Yes, but has anyone other than the Go development team claimed so? Even in Google, has anyone outside of the Go team mentioned using it for writing production systems?
There are various companies outside Google that are using Go in production, if you read elsewhere in this thread somebody pointed out they had pretty much bet their starup on Go and they are using it as their main development language.
Moreover, I care not one whit that Google looks "really bad and unattractive to programming language researchers"; because I'm not one.