Burden of proof is on Google to show that they are using it seriously which, to me, means an external user-facing application that has importance to Google the company's bottom line. If they aren't taking the same risks that a startup that decides to build with Go is going to be taking, it says a lot about Google the organization.

I am starting to think that this is not just about a programming language to you.

1) They don't owe you anything.

2) "Internal projects aren't serious shit." is absurdly overreaching. That is all I was saying in response to you.

Internal projects are not something that I can judge the importance of, so pointing out that they use Go in internal projects is asking me to take their word that they are taking Go seriously, but all I'm saying is "show me". Show me on a project I've heard of. We know they have faith in C++, Java, and to a lesser extent, Python.

  > Internal projects are not something that I can judge the importance of, so pointing out that they use Go in internal projects is asking me to take their word that they are taking Go seriously, but all I'm saying is "show me". Show me on a project I've heard of.

I assume you have heard of YouTube. From the first paragraph in the email:

  >  YouTube’s open source vitess project (http://code.google.com/p/vitess/) is one high-profile success story...

Do you honestly think they are lying? They aren't selling anything here...

The Java people had a very storied history of overstating

1. What was possible with Java in terms of performance

2. What use-cases were practical with Java and the JVM by conflating practical with "vaguely plausible or possible"