* The "exception handling" (or lack thereof). Defer, panic, and recover do provide an interesting means to achieve some similar behavior, but I ended up testing return values _a lot_, and all over the place. It felt very boilerplate and messy. Also, I found it odd that they claimed that the 'try-catch-finally idiom' was convoluted, then came up with defer, panic, and recover. Which calls code on function exit. I liked defer (great way to clean up allocations in reverse on the way out), but I did not find panic-recover as a convenient replacement for exception handling (nor does that seem to be the proper use-case for it anyway).
* new vs make. I don't see why they didn't just unify these in some way. Purity over pragmatism, perhaps.
* goto
* static compilation only (no shared libraries). I know static libraries are safer and sure do make deployment dreamy, but it would be nice to benefit from shared libraries if desired (easier to deploy security fixes, memory savings, etc).
* The "exception handling" (or lack thereof). Defer, panic, and recover do provide an interesting means to achieve some similar behavior, but I ended up testing return values _a lot_, and all over the place. It felt very boilerplate and messy. Also, I found it odd that they claimed that the 'try-catch-finally idiom' was convoluted, then came up with defer, panic, and recover. Which calls code on function exit. I liked defer (great way to clean up allocations in reverse on the way out), but I did not find panic-recover as a convenient replacement for exception handling (nor does that seem to be the proper use-case for it anyway).
* new vs make. I don't see why they didn't just unify these in some way. Purity over pragmatism, perhaps.
* goto
* static compilation only (no shared libraries). I know static libraries are safer and sure do make deployment dreamy, but it would be nice to benefit from shared libraries if desired (easier to deploy security fixes, memory savings, etc).