We don’t have more FP languages than OOP languages, and several languages that are considered FP have their own implementation of OOP (OCaml, Common Lisp...) in addition, several OOP languages are now implementing classic FP features like lambdas and pattern matching.
Also, the question asked doesn’t actually care about FP. Go isn’t a functional language, bit neither is it OO.
You are right, it should have been a comment to another person on this thread. Not the OP.
My point regarding the number of FP languages that it is not a silver bullet, neither is OOP to be sure, but FP has its own set of problems hence the many different implementations.
Regarding OOP languages implementing classic FP features, which is true and a blessing! These are good features which IMHO gives more credit to OOP languages.
Regarding number of languages, I don’t agree that it signifies a problem. For instance, F# doesn’t exist because OCaml is bad, but because there was room for a functional language with good interop with .NET. Same story with Clojure vs Common Lisp.
Making a new language doesn’t automaticly imply that some other language got something wrong.
Go lets me do enough object oriented programming to keep me more productive, while not creating a pile of confusion.
Sadly, there seems to be almost no functional programming concepts supported that I'd use (map, filter, reduce, lambdas). I think the lack of generics and operator overloading might have something to do with that?
Also, the question asked doesn’t actually care about FP. Go isn’t a functional language, bit neither is it OO.