> Or actually, it's not a generic (as in generics) package, which is why you lose type safety. Can we please skip just one opportunity to begin this endless fl

> Or actually, it's not a generic (as in generics) package, which is why you lose type safety. Can we please skip just one opportunity to begin this endless flamewar on a HN post about Go? Just one? Please? This topic has been beaten to death and beyond, and is not relevant to TFA at all, as the word "generic" can be used in many contexts, and it's more than clear which context OP meant.