Overall nice article, it just looses a bit by focusing too much on Go vs Python issue.
1 - The are quite quite a few strong type languages with native code implementations since the mid-80's, even GC enabled, Go is not the only one.
2 - There are dynamic languages like Self, Dylan, Lisp even the young Julia that have implementations which achieve C like speeds when compiled to native code, especially when the developers make use of type annotations and use the right data structures.
Self is specially important given that the research work, in a dynamic language, ended up being the heart of Sun's JIT compiler.
Yes, there have been many other languages with ahead-of-time compilation and garbage-collected runtimes, but Go is one of the few that might be considered popular today. At this point, one might invoke the old chestnut, "If you make technology choices based on popularity, you might as well go with (Windows|PHP)." But there are degrees of popularity, and there are advantages in choosing something that's at least moderately popular, e.g. a large selection of ready-to-use libraries and a pool of developers who don't need to learn a new language on the job.
Yeah I don't sympathize with ruby/python/go people. CL can be interpreted & compiled. Why the fuck is it okay to literally choose the worst options just because people don't like seeing an explicit AST?
1 - The are quite quite a few strong type languages with native code implementations since the mid-80's, even GC enabled, Go is not the only one.
2 - There are dynamic languages like Self, Dylan, Lisp even the young Julia that have implementations which achieve C like speeds when compiled to native code, especially when the developers make use of type annotations and use the right data structures.
Self is specially important given that the research work, in a dynamic language, ended up being the heart of Sun's JIT compiler.