> I want regular OOP

Why would you want that? Just to continue the habit? I'd say regular OOP is, after implicit `null`, the biggest mistake in software.

Crystal is nice, but for network programming, Go simply cannot be beaten by a language that has a equally limited type system.

Isn't Crystal significantly more expressive than Golang?

I get the hesitation from people used to C# or Java where OOP has always been the law of the land, but the rest of us who have used D, C++ or Python... to name a few... OOP is fully optional, and that's how I want OOP in any language, give me multi-paradigm any day of the week.

I would have loved Go more if they had made "lightweight" classes a thing, something feels wrong tying structs and functions, you could have added a wrapper around both to make the code more organized. I guess that's what I like about OOP, organized code. I don't even care about most OOP things, I just want to organize code in a meaningful way.

Opinions vary on OOP being a mistake. Most likely people with that opinion are responding to the influence of Java's popularity in the past. Or the confusion with how Javascript was prototype-based but with Java-like syntax and then it got classes for further sugar coating.

I don't think anyone who regularly uses Ruby or Python thinks OOP is a mistake, it's in how you use it and whether one likes the OOP design of the language.