> But that just ensures that the code type-checks for `Dummy`. It doesn't ensure that the code type-checks for any type you can put into `foo` Sure, that is C+

> But that just ensures that the code type-checks for `Dummy`. It doesn't ensure that the code type-checks for any type you can put into `foo` Sure, that is C++ specific design decision. Just like Go made the design decision of not type checking interfaces leading to tens-of-thousands of lines of dummy checking concrete types against interfaces in popular Go repos. I understand the design thinking even if I don't fully agree as a standard user of Go. Thanks for the detailed explanation in the blog. Minor nitpick: It isn't all that difficult to come up with type structural/generic edge cases for ANY language compiler where compilation takes forever and times out in a playground. Here is a small program of ~100 lines leveraging Go Generics: https://go.dev/play/p/XttCbEhonXg https://go.dev/play/p/XttCbEhonXg This will build for several minutes on your laptop if you use `go build`. It can be easily extended to several hours with a few modifications.