> Go works better than other languages for those who have what you call "a talent issue"
This is actually true and by design; a bit more nuanced from [0]: "Programmers working at Google are early in their careers and are most familiar with procedural languages, particularly from the C family. The need to get programmers productive quickly in a new language means that the language cannot be too radical."
Talent is important, but doesn't scale. You can have the best of the best software developers but it's a moot point how talented they are at industrial scales (hundreds of applications, tens of millions of LOC, thousands of developers, tens of thousands of features, decades of work, etc)
Note that "early in their careers" from the perspective of the author is basically <20 years of experience.
This is actually true and by design; a bit more nuanced from [0]: "Programmers working at Google are early in their careers and are most familiar with procedural languages, particularly from the C family. The need to get programmers productive quickly in a new language means that the language cannot be too radical."
Talent is important, but doesn't scale. You can have the best of the best software developers but it's a moot point how talented they are at industrial scales (hundreds of applications, tens of millions of LOC, thousands of developers, tens of thousands of features, decades of work, etc)
Note that "early in their careers" from the perspective of the author is basically <20 years of experience.
[0] https://go.dev/talks/2012/splash.article