> Isn't it a bit unfair to fault them for not including generics from the beginning? No. Because that would be much easier and was the only obvious answer. Th

> Isn't it a bit unfair to fault them for not including generics from the beginning? No. Because that would be much easier and was the only obvious answer. They took a shortcut, hoped nobody noticed and later when people started complaining about this obvious omission in a modern language, tried to weasel their way out of with some “complexity” bullshit and how “people wouldn’t understand”. So I can fault them for both not including it and then later being disenginious about why. For this glaring omission the golang designers deserve nothing but ridicule.