I guess my extended argument is -- okay, so Go will get there eventually (I'll concede that) -- but then what? IMO, Go will still not be attractive enough to warrant a major migration. cgo is interesting, but we already have a Java analog - the JNI.
> Go will still not be attractive enough to warrant a major migration
One of pron's concessions above is that Go is much easier to learn. That could be its killer feature: a new generation of developers and founders may choose to use Go for their projects because of the lower barrier to entry.
A common theme with these write-ups is that the developer felt comfortable with Go after about a week. That's pretty incredible.
I had the same experience. Coming from a scientific computing background, I wanted to get my feet wet with a an application level or system level language. I chose Go, and I felt like I was off and running in about a week. I've since looked at Java, and I'd rather not get involved with it unless absolutely necessary.
If that turns out to be the experience of many others, it won't be a matter of migration. It'll be a matter of growth from the ground level.
That is a good point, and it just might be that way, but I'm not so sure for several reasons.
First, languages like Python and Ruby (and I think Clojure, too) are as easy to learn and Go, and most would say are more productive.
And if you want a system level language, then you're probably not a beginner. Yes, Go is easier to learn than Java, but certainly not by much (it is, granted, much easier to get a small program running in Go). On the other hand, Java (or Kotlin) are more versatile.
Someone once said that easy always wins, and this might be the case with a system level language, too, but maybe when people specifically look for power then easy is not their top priority? I don't know.
