Comment by ModernMech

> Anyone would identify that as a shortcoming

I don't identify that as a shortcoming, because it enables the dynamism. A "worthwhile shortcoming" is just another way of saying "tradeoff".

You might as well say C++'s performance is a shortcoming because it's a result of static typing, which is hard to write compared to dynamic languages. Or Rust's safety is a shortcoming because it has worse compile times compared to Go. Or Java's JVM is a shortcoming because it doesn't compile to machine code like C.

Just because a language doesn't have the same features as another doesn't mean it suffers a shortcoming. A shortcoming only exists in the context of your own use case, which is different from everyone else's. What you label a "shortcoming" is the feature others are looking for in their language.

> But no, I haven’t written a language of my own, I apparently I’m not qualified to have an opinion.

Your opinion is fine, the OP was just saying that they would like to hear a qualified opinion because they are left wondering how a language designer might change Go for the better.

But you should try designing and implementing your own language, it's a lot of fun and a worthy exercise for any dev.