But... finding appropriate libraries is generally simple. Due to C++'s ongoing ABI issues C is, to this day, still the predominate language for library authors who want their library to be nearly universally consumable (in C, C++, Python, Go, Ruby, node/JavaScript, etc).
That said, I agree with part of your point which is why I use Go when I can today (though it also isn't suitable to be a C-like universal library language for other reasons). Built in strings, interfaces, maps, etc remove a lot of the basic code level pain points without also introducing the overbearing level of language complexity of C++/stl/boost (and I say that as someone who spent nearly 10 years programming professionally in C++ and at one time misguidedly considered myself a fan of the language).
Go is not so big on the full spectrum of traditional object orientation or generics, but once adapting to OO solely by composition and duck-type interfaces I haven't found either of those to be a big issue for me.
But... finding appropriate libraries is generally simple. Due to C++'s ongoing ABI issues C is, to this day, still the predominate language for library authors who want their library to be nearly universally consumable (in C, C++, Python, Go, Ruby, node/JavaScript, etc).
That said, I agree with part of your point which is why I use Go when I can today (though it also isn't suitable to be a C-like universal library language for other reasons). Built in strings, interfaces, maps, etc remove a lot of the basic code level pain points without also introducing the overbearing level of language complexity of C++/stl/boost (and I say that as someone who spent nearly 10 years programming professionally in C++ and at one time misguidedly considered myself a fan of the language).
Go is not so big on the full spectrum of traditional object orientation or generics, but once adapting to OO solely by composition and duck-type interfaces I haven't found either of those to be a big issue for me.