> Too low level for me. But since that I've started go as my first low level statically typed language

I don't think any garbage collected language can be called "low level". If you really want to go low level, learn C and ASM. Manual memory management is the real deal.

I don't think any compiled or assembled language can be called "low level". If you really want to go low level, learn Machine code and CPU architecture.

...

I don't think any executed language can be called low level. If you really want to go low level, learn hardware design, VHDL/VERLIOG

...

I don't think any hardware description language can be called low level. If you really want to go low level, build your own logic gates out of transistors

...

I'm with Nietzsche, the real low-level programming involves feeling new feelings and somehow communicating/philosophizing/programming them into other people.

Go is not appreciably more low level than e.g. Haskell though. It leaves out high level constructs but it doesn't offer you any more control to make up for it.

Having done all 3 of those, anything that involves manual memory management counts as low level in my book.

Ha ha.

"for me" is something you all have to notice. I started learning programming while doing hard labor at day. I have been in this only for a couple of years and I'm not a computer science graduate. So that is why I said it's low level for me. Anyway your explanation seems to be reasonable. Think I learnt some.

Don't take things personally. My intent wasn't to belittle you or whatever. We are having a simple technical discussion.

Totally understand. No offense taken! Cheers!

Everything is relative. Also I think your parent was referring to the NES reimplementation.