Counterpoint, regarding community: the Rust programming language has a much more vocal, cohesive, and engaged community than Go does in my experience, even though it has a fraction of the corporate backing.

Counterpoint, regarding “reducing the cost of features”: Go is spreading a simplified understanding of what garbage collection performance means to a generation of programmers by providing almost no configuration over their GC settings. I’ve had people say that Go’s GC is obviously the best, without any point of reference with which to compare it.

What Go has done here is pick a reasonable set of trade-offs to make in their garbage collector, hard-code most of these settings into the runtime system, and package that into the philosophy of “configuration is bad”.