Please don't slavishly copy Java/JS idioms. Go is not a language with a JIT and does not have a GC designed to handle lots of garbage; it assumes you won't allo

Please don't slavishly copy Java/JS idioms. Go is not a language with a JIT and does not have a GC designed to handle lots of garbage; it assumes you won't allocate unless you need to. For example instead of func Drop[T any](array []T, n int) []T { if n > len(array) { n = len(array) } return array[n:] } Consider func Drop[T any](array []T, n int) []T { if n < len(array) { return array[n:] } return nil } Which can collect the underlying array sooner. Instead of your Chunk implementation (which, I want to offer, is better than most), consider an iterative zero-alloc version: func Chunk[T any](array []T, n int) (chunk, remaining []T) { return Take(array, n), Drop(array, n) } (And not performance-related, but instead of indices in `FindIndex` etc., consider returning pointers; they can then generalize more easily to non-slice sequences, or anonymous slices.) (And please don't call slices arrays.)