I think they just made their line in the sand. Any criticism of the lack of generics has to take into account the arguments already made for its, as far as I kn

I think they just made their line in the sand. Any criticism of the lack of generics has to take into account the arguments already made for its, as far as I know, deliberate omission. Every so often people start grumbling about C. They call it a terrible language because the specification contains undefined behavior (and less frequently because they removed the linter from the compiler early on). These arguments are well known and have been addressed over several decades. Any complaint about undefined behavior has to account for the fact that said omissions are intentional and have been well-argued for by the ANSI committee and community of C compiler developers. If you can't do that then you're complaints are just going to fall on deaf ears: you haven't contributed anything that we don't already know. If anyone wants to introduce generics into Go they're going to have one hell of a debate on their hands. I believe the reasons against it are firmly established and it will never happen. I may be wrong but any argument for their inclusion has a lot of work to do. This doesn't make Go a bad language. It's probably just not the right fit for your purposes if you really need generics. Such abstractions are not a universal property of languages. I get by fine in C without them... but I prefer C (or Common Lisp) because if I did want them there are good libraries to give me those features. I don't know when it became fashionable to have such opinionated languages but I tend to disagree with most of them so I just avoid them for the most part.