Sorry, but I have to be honest: in my opinion most of the replies you got to this comment are extremely misleading.
As a user of Go and Ruby I can tell you that: Ruby is an awesome language, and there's nothing else that beats it at getting things done quickly and painlessly (unless you have a mathematical mindset, in which case nothing gets shorter and more elegant (at least the day you write it) than functional programming). It has many other defects, like safety in larger codebases, speed, some weird quirks, etc., but it's an awesome language, don't expect many other languages to be less painful than Ruby (on small programs at least).
Don't listen to those that say professional programmers won't use Go. The only reason a professional programmer will say hard no to Go is for extremely optimized or mission critical code that can't tolerate garbage collection (even though the GC in Go is very low latency) or need a more sophisticated type system, or numerical applications for which Go isn't really well suited.
If you compare Ruby and Python to Go, the transition might be hard if you haven't studied computer science formally. That said, it's a matter of making the switch, understanding that all those objects (boxes to put data in) that you had in Ruby, now are statically typed; this means that a box is of exactly one type and can't change midway (and even subtle changes need explicit casting/conversion). You also need to learn the difference between composition and inheritance, which might be tricky depending on how you learned to program... but beyond that, Go is a very small and easy-to-write-code-in language. You might like the syntax more or less, but it's easy to write good code in Go. It has many other gotchas and hoops you will need to jump through (var initialization, error handling, new vs make, weird append/len, learn to printf, learn pointers, etc), but it's a good step after Ruby / Python, if you need things bigger than what Ruby / Python allow you to comfortably manage.
A hello world might require defining a package, importing another package, and a more verbose print statement than python / ruby, but those are all great (and minimal) appliances when developing at a larger scale.
With online fingerprinting, big companies seem to have the problem of "identity", bots and spam prevention decently solved, but at the cost of users privacy.
There are many opportunities that could really use a good mechanism to uniquely identify users, know for sure they are real people. This is pretty hard to do (or outright impossible) without the collaboration of governments. But governments will f*ck it up in a number of ways if we leave it to them. We have to think bigger than what some countries have already solved.
First, we need something like credit cards. A physical object (identity cards could work on many countries, but they tend to suffer from beyond horrible usability when it comes to their digital chips / functionality) with a password that can be changed. We would also need a place to see all the "transactions" or actions done with your identity, as we have with credit cards. India and their Aadhaar project has shown that biometric identification is not good. But it sounds very nice and sci-fi, so it sadly sticks. Nothing new yet.
But what we really would need are manageable permissions, so you can always prove that you are an actual human, but not necessarily revealing anything else and being a completely anonymous user, or choosing to reveal some data (country, real name, etc).
If something like this was global and effective, not only we would have many more opportunities through the internet, we could also come much closer to things like direct democracy. Password management and online identity management would also become much easier. Obviously there also are many problems. Starting with the access to the internet itself. And all this identification system does sound very dangerous from a privacy-minded perspective (but the alternatives will end up being much worse, and worse systems will be imposed on us). And I'm still completely ignoring the political will to do something like this.
I guess he's pretty popular around here, but if anyone still hasn't seen the channel, please check it out. if I could, I'd vote for this guy to get a nobel prize. seriously. education is critical to our future, and efforts like set an example that I personally consider to be invaluable on the long run. what I mean is that it's easy to recommend videos of people like this, but since it's "just a youtuber", we often fail to reflect more deeply about what's —at least in my opinion— an amazing contribution to humanity.
Heh. I kinda felt: "hey, I agree with that", so I started asking myself why. What's the difference? Somehow, it looks like the difference is that on one side you have a very complicated problem but in a potentially well defined and bounded environment, and on the other you may have "smaller" problems, but on an environment so vast and complex that's kinda impossible to assert that you are doing things "properly". There are so many parts always changing at the same time!
anyway, I don't think this would ever be accepted as evidence in trial. it could be an indicator/lead for investigations, but I don't think it would be a big concern for attackers?
Well, conventions are usually related to syntax. Then in some languages we talk about "idiomatic" solutions to certain problems. But style can definitely go beyond those two, and influence others like problem solving approaches, code structure, etc, which don't necessarily contradict conventions.
As a user of Go and Ruby I can tell you that: Ruby is an awesome language, and there's nothing else that beats it at getting things done quickly and painlessly (unless you have a mathematical mindset, in which case nothing gets shorter and more elegant (at least the day you write it) than functional programming). It has many other defects, like safety in larger codebases, speed, some weird quirks, etc., but it's an awesome language, don't expect many other languages to be less painful than Ruby (on small programs at least).
Don't listen to those that say professional programmers won't use Go. The only reason a professional programmer will say hard no to Go is for extremely optimized or mission critical code that can't tolerate garbage collection (even though the GC in Go is very low latency) or need a more sophisticated type system, or numerical applications for which Go isn't really well suited.
If you compare Ruby and Python to Go, the transition might be hard if you haven't studied computer science formally. That said, it's a matter of making the switch, understanding that all those objects (boxes to put data in) that you had in Ruby, now are statically typed; this means that a box is of exactly one type and can't change midway (and even subtle changes need explicit casting/conversion). You also need to learn the difference between composition and inheritance, which might be tricky depending on how you learned to program... but beyond that, Go is a very small and easy-to-write-code-in language. You might like the syntax more or less, but it's easy to write good code in Go. It has many other gotchas and hoops you will need to jump through (var initialization, error handling, new vs make, weird append/len, learn to printf, learn pointers, etc), but it's a good step after Ruby / Python, if you need things bigger than what Ruby / Python allow you to comfortably manage.
A hello world might require defining a package, importing another package, and a more verbose print statement than python / ruby, but those are all great (and minimal) appliances when developing at a larger scale.