> If we reduce Go lack of features to stuff that C doesn't provide, maybe bounds checking, modules and GC aren't required as well. Well that was the initial ba

> If we reduce Go lack of features to stuff that C doesn't provide, maybe bounds checking, modules and GC aren't required as well. Well that was the initial basic design frame: A systems programming language that removes some of the headaches of writing distributed systems software with the use of a GC and Channels/CSP. It was intended from the start to have more features and tradeoffs than C has, and it even backed up pretty quickly from trying to be a competitor in the (not-distributed) systems programming space, didn't it? > That even languages born before generics are willing to move forward. C11 Generics are a pretty limited feature, basically a central switch on types instead of values. They are not a big deal. And maybe Go decided against them because Go has RTTI. In any case, C11 Generics are decidedly different from what many people expect from a Generics in Go. > As for complaining, projects like Docker and K8s ensure that those of us that rather not use Go, have to deal with it in some form anyway. Dude... 1) They are not Go. 2) If you don't like them don't deal with them. 3) Don't make an elephant from a mosquito. 4) Show us some of your beautiful systems software written in perfect OOP style in languages from 1975 already! We need real world proof that there is a supreme super-typesafe OOP way with functional bells that solves all of our problems!