What's embarrassing is that people are still evaluating programming languages like they were bags of features. The more features you stuff in the bag, the bette

What's embarrassing is that people are still evaluating programming languages like they were bags of features. The more features you stuff in the bag, the better it must be! well in some cases your platform only support one language, or maybe to. So it makes a lot of sense to then evaluate tha language as a whole. Even then, I don't see much wrong with evalulating a language as abag of features as long as you don't simply consider the amount of features but rather it's quality. The reality is that generics aren't free. No, but I noticed that the end, once you know how to use them properly and become used to them, they tend to become invaluable, even to a point that programmers coming from years of C++ background are struggling in other languages when they lack generics. Sure, right tool for the job. But in case of generics I'd say they're much too broad to speak of a single tool and they can be used for multiple jobs. So I'm with the author and feel go lacks on that point. To quote Yossi Krenin aka the guy who doesn't want to write std::map< std::string, std::string > :P