Really well written article. I liked that the author tried to keep a simple language around a fair amount of complex topics. Although the article paints the Go

Really well written article. I liked that the author tried to keep a simple language around a fair amount of complex topics. Although the article paints the Go solution for generics somewhat negative, it actually made me more positive to the Go solution. I don't want generic code to be pushed everywhere in Go. I like Go to stay simple and it seems the choices the Go authors have made will discourage overuse of Generics. With interfaces you already avoid code duplication so why push generics? It is just a complication. Now you can keep generics to the areas were Go didn't use to work so great. Personally I quite like that Go is trying to find a niche somewhere between languages such as Python and C/C++. You get better performance than Python, but they are not seeking zero-overhead at any cost like C++ which dramatically increases complexity. Given the huge amount of projects implemented with Java, C#, Python, Node etc there must be more than enough cases where Go has perfectly good performance. In the more extreme cases I suspect C++ and Rust are the better options. Or if you do number crunching and more scientific stuff then Julia will actually outperform Go, despite being dynamically typed. Julia is a bit opposite of Go. Julia has generics (parameterized types) for performance rather than type safety. In Julia you can create functions taking interface types and still get inlining and max performance. Just throwing it out there are many people seem to think that to achieve max performance you always need a complex statically typed language like C++/D/Rust. No you don't. There are also very high speed dynamic languages (well only Julia I guess at the moment. Possibly LuaJIT and Terra).