Like all things superficial, the more time you spend looking at something, the more the visual appeal (or lack thereof) normalises to average.

I think one tangibly good thing about Go though is how readable it is and how easy it is to grok, even with all the error handling boilerplate. I'd argue that Rust is also very readable though, and if the features of the language appeal to you I'd suggest giving it some time to get over the visual hurdle.

From a personal standpoint having spent years working in both languages, it's rare I'll choose Go over Rust nowadays purely for practical reasons. I'm roughly equally productive in both, but the end result tends to be much more performant, maintainable and robust on the Rust side.

Thanks for the encouragement!

That must be very subjective, as I have the exact opposite reaction. I mean, there are portions of rust that are dense and cluttered, such as function definitions with the ownership rules, but the content of those functions I find very clear and concise.

To me, Go and Rust are about equally appealing. Rust is more complex to me because it's a lower-level language; Go looks like a higher-level cousin.

I learned from Rust that I dislike curly braces. The language itself seems great conceptually, but I prefer the appearance of languages like Python that drop curly braces. If Rust was developed without curly braces I'd probably be [more] obsessed with it.

Strangely enough, parentheses and square brackets are also appealing. I also dislike writing code where whitespace is meaningful, even though I prefer to read it.

It's just the appearance of curly braces that bothers me.

> It's just the appearance of curly braces that bothers me.

That sounds easily fixable with a different font. Or make your own. :)