>In modern systems, simplicity is a powerful debugger.
I don't consider the features I mentioned in this article to constitute "complexity".
I think that Haskell is a beautifully simple language, in the same way that e.g. Euler's identity is beautifully simple. The reasoning behind it may be somewhat complicated, but the result is very simple (and impressive) to behold.
Because Go is pretty good at its niche, and it has a huge amount of corporate support (from Google), which can make even a mediocre language seem very attractive.
I was around for the Java vs. Smalltalk keruffle. I have to say that Go is less hype and more good, pragmatic design than Java. Go also started out with quite respectable speed and a pleasant development experience, which wasn't true for Java.
Also, as for a "huge amount" of corporate support, if we see the equivalent of "Enterprise Java Beans" then I'll concede that Go is "another Java."
Similar to Java: The barriers to outreach are small because the language is in many ways familiar. I think that's a wise and pragmatic choice.
Because they're completely different languages. The philosophies of the two languages are completely opposite in almost all respects (purely functional vs. procedural, highly general vs. not-general-at-all, and so on and so forth). If you find Go interesting you probably don't find Haskell interesting and vice versea.
I do (well, Scala), and it's much nicer. So it's frustrating to see all these articles praising this Go and encouraging beginners to learn it, or claiming it's innovative when it's nothing of the sort.
I don't consider the features I mentioned in this article to constitute "complexity".
I think that Haskell is a beautifully simple language, in the same way that e.g. Euler's identity is beautifully simple. The reasoning behind it may be somewhat complicated, but the result is very simple (and impressive) to behold.