As far as I have followed, I think it is more that while a fair amount of work had gone into prior designs for generics in Go, the general feeling of the core G

As far as I have followed, I think it is more that while a fair amount of work had gone into prior designs for generics in Go, the general feeling of the core Go team was the prior designs did mesh well with the rest of the language, whereas the more recent design seems like it could work. From this blog post[1] from last year from the core Go team: We’ve been thinking about generics since work on Go began, and we wrote and rejected our first concrete design in 2010. We wrote and rejected three more designs by the end of 2013. Four abandoned experiments, but not failed experiments, We learned from them, like we learned from check and try. Each time, we learned that the path to Go 2 is not in that exact direction, and we noticed other directions that might be interesting to explore. But by 2013 we had decided that we needed to focus on other concerns, so we put the entire topic aside for a few years. Last year we started exploring and experimenting again, and we presented a new design, based on the idea of a contract, at Gophercon last summer. We’ve continued to experiment and simplify, and we’ve been working with programming language theory experts to understand the design better. Overall, I am hopeful that we’re headed in a good direction [1] https://blog.golang.org/experiment https://blog.golang.org/experiment