It also confuses ease of reading with density of meaning. It presents the simplistic idea that the less dense statement is always the easiest to read, which might be true in isolation but it's almost always false in the larger context.
This is my experience with Go in a nutshell. You start out pleased by how easy it is to read the code. You end up frustrated by how much damn code you have to wade through to understand a relatively simple system.
Perhaps the fantasy is that Go forces programmers to write simple, elegant systems. In reality, of course, the effect is much smaller than hoped. Go is much easier to get right than C, so programmers have no fear of writing vast reams of code. This is not such a problem for the original author, whose understanding of the system precedes the implementation, but anyone else reading the code has to refine meaning from very meager ore.
This is my experience with Go in a nutshell. You start out pleased by how easy it is to read the code. You end up frustrated by how much damn code you have to wade through to understand a relatively simple system.
Perhaps the fantasy is that Go forces programmers to write simple, elegant systems. In reality, of course, the effect is much smaller than hoped. Go is much easier to get right than C, so programmers have no fear of writing vast reams of code. This is not such a problem for the original author, whose understanding of the system precedes the implementation, but anyone else reading the code has to refine meaning from very meager ore.