Interesting, because a common criticism of Go is that it's "stuck in the 70s". [1] It's "modern" only because of its age, not because of its features.

[1] https://github.com/ksimka/go-is-not-good

Part of Go's charm is how much it leaves out.

But that's not to say it doesn't include good stuff.

I'd say support for lightweight threading, CSP (channels), structural typing, fully embracing first-class functions (crippled python lambda, anyone?), and a build-system integrated into the language rather than left to 3rd-party-tools are all distinctly post-90s features, for a mainstream language.

Also, gofmt is a huge boon. The Go community focuses on ecosystem and ergonomic human factors of development feels distinctly post-90s-lanauge to me.

Also, the 90s saw an intense, misguided focus on "object-oriented-programming", which Go completely, mercifully ditches. In that sense, it's post-90s. :)

(Well, OK, maybe OO-style programming is good for UIs -- thinking of stuff like iOS/Cocoa apis and Unity.)

I would argue that Go is very much a 90s language. It has none of the benefits of a 21st century language, none of the (as yet mostly unknown) drawbacks of a 21st century language, and fixes the drawbacks of 90s languages that we've learned over the last 25 years.

This definitely should not be interpreted as a slight on Go, many people would very happily trade that lack of benefits to get that lack of drawbacks.

Yeah, Go is more of a "synthesis" language, trying to conservatively use proven-out techniques in a very refined, cohesive whole. To me it is still "post-90s"; see my response to zephyrfalcon for details. :)

Go has a large chuck of numpy/scipy stuff github.com/gonum