> Go has generics, maps and array are container types, you just can't define your own. To say Go has no generics is stupid, it just doesn't allow you to define

> Go has generics, maps and array are container types, you just can't define your own. To say Go has no generics is stupid, it just doesn't allow you to define your own. That's usually what is indeed meant by the statement "Go doesn't have generics", maybe it should be "Go doesn't have user-defined generics", but I assume most people can infer that. I really hate the recent trend of having to spell everything out. > This statement makes no sense at all. Can you be more specific? What doesn't make sense at all in saying that when I have a simple problem that is unlikely to benefit greatly from a more sophisticated type system, I reach for Go, otherwise I use a different language?