3. TypeScript only supports positional generic parameters (i.e. you can't give them names). It's well known that positional semantics don't scale when it comes

3. TypeScript only supports positional generic parameters (i.e. you can't give them names). It's well known that positional semantics don't scale when it comes to argument lists, because when changing the API of something with a positional argument list, adding an argument in an arbitrary position becomes a breaking change that requires all usages to be updated. Unfortunately, part of the fallout from point 2 means we often need to define higher order functions that require a decent number of generic parameters, all of which have to be positional due to this limitation. There's a hack that we discovered that allows you to have poor-man's named generics by using a single generic argument with named properties, inspired by this comment: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/pull/23696#issuecomment-408717985 https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/pull/23696#issuecomm... But it's incredibly verbose, and doesn't support optional generic arguments or defaults as far as I can tell. We still use it despite this, because we believe the verbosity and having to specify every generic argument is the lesser of two evils compared to offering APIs that requires breaking changes for every addition. But that we have to make this choice points to a glaring omission in the design of the type system.