> loud, prominent voices shouting that go didn't need and shouldn't have generics The party line has always[1] been that generics would be nice to have, but "W

> loud, prominent voices shouting that go didn't need and shouldn't have generics The party line has always[1] been that generics would be nice to have, but "We haven't yet found a design that gives value proportionate to the complexity, although we continue to think about it." The prominent voices had been saying "the need is overstated", not "there is no need"; but I understand[2] why so many hear it wrong. [1]: Language FAQ, from Nov 11, 2009; one day after the 1.0 release: https://web.archive.org/web/20091113154906/http://golang.org/doc/go_lang_faq.html#generics https://web.archive.org/web/20091113154906/http://golang.org... [2]: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128061