> they feel that generics are a good fit for this language Or that it's ludicrous for any statically typed language to not have generics. > It’s small and sim

> they feel that generics are a good fit for this language Or that it's ludicrous for any statically typed language to not have generics. > It’s small and simple, and every detail is carefully thought out > Nearly all of Go’s features are bulletproof > my opinion are among the best implementations of their concepts in our entire industry Uh huh. > You could write a book called “C++: the good parts”, but consider that such a book about Go would just be a book about Go Or it could be one-liner: "easy concurrency". > simplicity and elegance are now the principles I optimize for Doesn't everyone who cares? The problem is that elegance and simplicity, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. To me, generics increase elegance and simplicity. > If you’re fighting Go’s lack of generics trying to do something Your Way, you might want to step back and consider a solution to the problem which embraces the limitations of Go instead So pretend it's the 70s and use void* (interface{})?