> True, but that's not what the article's arguing. Reading it twice, I think this is a very veiled argument against generics in Go on the grounds that well, uh

> True, but that's not what the article's arguing. Reading it twice, I think this is a very veiled argument against generics in Go on the grounds that well, uh... proportionality? I agree with the post above you. I do not like the premise of this or of Go. I see it as a deliberate attempt to walk away from empowering programmers. It's not solid technology, it's the technical manifestation of business decisions.