The Slippery Slope is also a fallacy, and this exemplifies why. Java didn't have generics. Then they didn't have lambdas. Now they're even redoing the classpat

The Slippery Slope is also a fallacy, and this exemplifies why. Java didn't have generics. Then they didn't have lambdas. Now they're even redoing the classpath! Have they gone nuts? No, they've been evolving, and they've kept on adding features as it was opportune and useful to do so. If tomorrow's programming paradigms depend on HKTs and dependent types, then, yes, Go might want to add them. Today's programmers are just about starting to understand what a dependent type even is, so you're suggesting to include them in Go in order to ridicule the potential inclusion of generics. This is a fallacy, because generics and dependent types are years, decades, apart. And generics are very much part of how several generations of programmers have learned, and expect to be able to program. If your language stops changing, your language is already dead. Yet another point of similarity between natural and programming languages.