> Go, which claims not to have either generics or objects, has both for built-in types. Who is claiming that? > The argument that generics are unnecessary wou

> Go, which claims not to have either generics or objects, has both for built-in types. Who is claiming that? > The argument that generics are unnecessary would be more convincing if those built-in types were not needed. This is a straw man that you're tearing down. The Go devs have always acknowledged the utility of generics. They just have a different set of trade offs that they are targeting. More to the point, there's absolutely nothing inconsistent with the position, "If we can make writing code easier with a little blessed generics without sacrificing our project goals, then let's do it!"