It's not cheating, but you haven't rolled your own container: because in the end you don't have one. Let's make an analogy. Suppose a language didn't have tai

It's not cheating, but you haven't rolled your own container: because in the end you don't have one. Let's make an analogy. Suppose a language didn't have tail recursion, but by using goto you could "roll your own." So we're on the same page, right? you get what I'm saying, and how rolling your own might look and work, right? Now suppose I said that without goto, it is literally impossible to roll your own tail recursion. (ignore whether this is true it's just an analogy.) You are saying, no it's not: you can patch the generated executable, so as long as it is possible to patch executables using go (i.e. if it can read and write binary files), then you can roll your own tail recursion even without goto, through binary patching post compilation. It might just be tedious or special-cased to one specific file but you can do it (you're saying) See the difference? It's not that patching an executable is "cheating." It's just that it's outside of the definition of rolling your own tail recursion. Likewise it's not that source code generation is "cheating." It's just outside the definition of rolling your own container. it's simply not what rolling your own means. after you've done it, you don't have a container. my analogy is a bit leaky but I think it gives insight, and I hope you see what I mean.