> I feel like I can confidently say structural typing, in practice, is MUCH easier, better and fun to work with than nominal typing. That's the issue with the

> I feel like I can confidently say structural typing, in practice, is MUCH easier, better and fun to work with than nominal typing. That's the issue with these kinds of topics. For me, it's the other way round. Having worked with golang on significant code bases, the way they handle interfaces is just terrible IMO. It's been quite friction heavy, and loses out on one of the most important part of nominal typing: being able to use interfaces to tag classes. The hacks you see in golang to get around it, while introducing dangerous behavior, is quite astounding.