> `Interfaces', the way they are invariably implemented, don't cut it -- > too limiting and imposing.
I do not claim that Go's interfaces can match the type system of Haskell but this sentence tells me you aren't very familiar with them. They are not implemented, invariably or otherwise, like any other things called interfaces that I know. They also don't work very much like the same-named things in other languages. As for limiting? Maybe. Imposing? Not at all. If anything, I'd call them liberating. As Russ said, there's more new in Go than many observers seem to realize. The language looks much more traditional than it really is. -rob
