The way I see it:

golang: small, simple description, download link, platforms, and UTF (editable!) hello world all far "above the fold" and following that nice "F" shape for where they put important information. very plain. very efficient.

ruby-lang looks like a web 2.0 CRM-built site. So much wasted space, so little obvious flow or prioritization of elements, even on the main page.

And the others attempt to describe things instead of demonstrating them, use a lot of vertical space for big images that don't inform you of anything, and generally hide the real meat a scroll away for what reason? They don't make a sale if I hit the big green button, but they do get a totally-uninformed poke at their system, generally leading to a crappy first experience.

--

I'm not at all a fan of the slide show interface, but I certainly don't find it a bad thing that they aren't high on Photoshop fumes. Though they can sometimes be used to great effect, they aren't generally informationally dense, which programmers often prefer.

I think it's nice. It's super functional and easy to find information. It may not be pretty, but I know exactly where to go to find what I want.

I like that the urls are consistent. To find package documentation, I go to golang.org/pkg/<name of import>. For example, for http docs, I go to golang.org/pkg/net/http.

For most languages, I resort to a Google search to find package docs. This is true for python, c++, and even Java. I rarely have to google search something in Go.

I think the site very much fits in with their goal of simple and orthogonal. I actually wish more language documentation followed suit and made it easier for programmers to search for docs.

Sure, everyone wants a pretty site, but it's not like they need to advertise anything. It gets the job done very efficiently.

Regarding docs, what's also extremely neat is, when you're offline, just run "go doc" and it starts an HTTP server on your local machine to serve the exact same fine documentation experience. So thoughtful, one of many small details just part of the overall package, when you need them you find them easily and are delighted.

It depends on the software. I wouldn't trust an encryption library which had a website with a really "beautiful" design however I wouldn't trust a CSS framework that had a very basic or ugly design. For a language like Go, which is aimed at more advanced developers, I would say that design really doesn't matter that much.

That said I prefer the design of the Go website to all of those that you linked and that Git website still saddens me when I see it: I miss the old site :(

So, yes, presentation does matter but that doesn't always mean that it should be pretty. For some audiences, that can be a turn-off.

> a language like Go, which is aimed at more advanced developers

Reading this the average developer devices to continue using C++, which is all fun and games...

I don't find golang site ugly at all, especially when compared with http://www.ruby-lang.org/en

Not to hijack the thread; please see this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4551907

I recently saw someone standing in front of a Mies van der Rohe building and call it ugly because the windows featured no curtains and no flower boxes.

It's simply and minimalist. Just like the language.