Yes. It's that thing — the fact that a language helps you read what a single function does really easily, but in so doing makes the entire codebase quite dense, is not optimal for us, but is good for them.

And the things that we do to manage this, that are symbolic or based on visceral real-world analogy, are good for us and bad for them.

Go is kind of in the middle, in the way that many vaguely Wirth-like and CSP-like languages possibly are, I guess.