>This is a problem they were told about all along. They never had to take that risk, they decided to against advice. They were always open to adding generics t

>This is a problem they were told about all along. They never had to take that risk, they decided to against advice. They were always open to adding generics to the language, as can be seen in their FAQ from 2013 [0]: >Why does Go not have generic types? Generics may well be added at some point. We don't feel an urgency for them, although we understand some programmers do. Generics are convenient but they come at a cost in complexity in the type system and run-time. We haven't yet found a design that gives value proportionate to the complexity, although we continue to think about it. [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20130118182924/https://golang.org/doc/faq#Why_doesnt_Go_have_feature_X http://web.archive.org/web/20130118182924/https://golang.org...