You mean besides doing a few contributions to the core Go libraries?

Do you want to have the ticket numbers and Mercurial branches information?

Paulo, I'm very sorry if my question looks a bit rude. The only goal I had is to understand if your opinion is theoretical or based on the real experience.

I don't share your opinion on Go syntax, although, I like Pascal family much more than C and had been using Pascal/Delphi almost exclusively for all my projects until 2003. After that, Delphi became too outdated and I had to switch to other languages.

Also, as I have said before, my knowledge about Oberon and Component Pascal is theoretical, so it might be that you're actually right. Given that these languages are effectively dead (by github criteria: it does not recognize Oberon or Component Pascal, but supports DCPU16 assembly), I don't have a chance to improve this situation (any program written on dead language is theoretical, because it would not be used in prod)

No problem.

I did contribute the initial version of the os.user package for Windows, which was then picked up by the core team. Also started to add Windows to the exp.gui/draw packages, but gave up on them when they were dropped from Go 1.

I find github criteria a bad one, as many people I know don't even care about it.

Oberon is still pretty much alive for ETHZ students as Active Oberon, just check the list of possible assignments, http://www.nativesystems.inf.ethz.ch/WebHomeProjects.

You can see the original method syntax for Component Pascal here, http://www.oberon.ch/pdf/CP-Lang.pdf, section 10.2.

I still lurk in the Go mailing list as a language geek, but lost interest, as the language feels too minimalist to my taste, given my experience with other languages.

In a way I belong to the group Rob recently described as C++ programmers. Given my experience in language design, using Go makes me feel I am back in high school with Turbo Pascal 6.0.

But Google's weight might nevertheless help Go become mainstream, who knows.