> When it comes to go, most people who argue about generics, do not write go and probably wouldn't touch it even if it had generics. Although I have no more pr

> When it comes to go, most people who argue about generics, do not write go and probably wouldn't touch it even if it had generics. Although I have no more proof of the contrary position than you have for this assertion, I must still insist that it is bizarre. Generic types are not some bleeding edge piece of CS research, of interest only to academics. We have already fought this war in Java, for heaven's sake. Even despite the problems with Java generics, I don't think many people would want to go back. There is of course a complexity cost, but there is also a cost of not implementing generics, that code is more brittle and more reliable on casts and runtime assertions. Is this really so awesome?