Is it nonsense? Makes perfect sense to me. There are programmers who don't get excited about languages as a topic and would rather just get on with it. "People who are sick of programming languages" seems like an apt description for that crowd.

I personally dislike Go, precisely for many of the reasons why those "people who are sick of programming languages" would like it!

I like the phrase, too. I'm on the "sick of programming languages" side, and I like go, for the things I'm using it for: CLIs, simple debug web-servers, calling out to RPC services. (Read a CSV file, run everything through translate / grammar parsing / etc.)

I'm in that age of folks that did pascal in high school, C and Scheme in college, C++ and python in grad school while futzing around with ocaml and common lisp and sather and other fun things. Programming languages are fun.

But, oh, I have so much other stuff to pay attention to. I write C++ a few days a week, which is barely enough to keep move semantics in my head. I also write SQL and analysis docs and internal DSLs and configuration files and python.

At this point, C++ is barely earning its keep, in terms of mental complexity for reward. Go feels a lot nicer, since I can just get in, do my thing, get out, and it'll at least work and give me a compile error if one of the APIs change when I don't look at it for a year.

I'm not about to jump into rust.

So, at least for me, go hits a pretty good sweet spot.

[Edit: I'm not trying to point fingers at rust in particular. It looks fun. If I weren't still working on getting my hobbyist-Haskell better, I'd probably be playing with it. But that would be at home, for fun, not where I have to have the thing in my head for production issues.

It reminds me a bit of the old statement about perl, that it was a fantastic language if you used it every day, but not if you don't. And I don't get to use these things every day any more.]

Please give me this nonsense. I'm sick of programming languages.

Protip: You can write FORTRAN in any language!

Of course, you can (re)write code in any Turing-complete language in any other Turing-complete language.

Why?

Look at Java. Look at Spring and look at all the other junk out there. Every corner you go around you see smart people trying to outsmart each other rather than solve problems. Go makes that harder.

Spring and Java aren't junk.

I like Go for some things, but when using it I miss many things from Java:

* I can connect to the running JVM and change log levels, and other parameters live.

* I can debug a Java file that has compilation errors in it and fix them as I go in some cases. (In Go you can't even compile a file with an unused import)

* Java libraries and frameworks are mature. Some have been around for decades with all the testing and refinement that implies.

For some applications, like a REST server connecting to a database, why would I use Go and use all it's brand new, limited libraries when I could use dropwizard instead and get an easy to deploy JAR file?

Sure Java has some esoteric features, but you don't have to use them.

If you can't keep your team from being clever in Java, I doubt you'll be able to do so just because they use Go.

I've seen many Go libraries attempt to use introspection and backtick 'annotations' to very confusing and buggy effect.

I'll just leave this here: http://gorm.io/docs/many_to_many.html, http://gorm.io/docs/has_one.html#Association-ForeignKey

Spring boot is fantastic if you havent checked it out.

Spring Boot is precisely the magical nonsense the GP was complaining about.

I like Java and Spring, but I don't use Spring boot.

Note that just because the recent tutorials out there mention Spring Boot, doesn't mean you can't wire together a Spring app either through config files or programatically.

In my opinion, its not any more magical than any other framework.

What it is though is something that solves problems and has a great ecosystem, instead of reinventing the wheel.