1 & 2) Read my comment again. My remark about functors (in the ML sense) addresses this point. I'm quite well versed in how type abstraction works. Your comment

1 & 2) Read my comment again. My remark about functors (in the ML sense) addresses this point. I'm quite well versed in how type abstraction works. Your comment about being aware of underlying type details is completely non-sensical with respect to nesting. The problem you're worried about applies to non-disjoint union types, ie dynamic typing, not Go's typical use of type-safe pointers. Nil is type-safe in Go, there's no risk of confusing: a nil *Foo with a nil *Bar 3) You say "meh", but abstraction for the sake of abstraction is exactly what drives working programmers away from so called "better" languages. 4) Meh. Anyway, I'm done with this thread.