[masklinn]

> I'm not even aware of go compiling most of the time (it's typically under 1 second).

That's besides the point, codegen from extra on-disk files can only be slower than codegen without extra on-disk files, so "generics are slow to compile" and "go has generate" don't make sense together, yet they are used together to assert that generics are bad and anyway go has a replacement.

> go's build system handles these sort of things without a more complex workflow.

No they don't. If you're using go generate you have to run go generate. That's a strictly more complex workflow than not having to run it.

[dekhn]

I didn't say generics were bad. I said compilation is so fast that I didn't notice it.

While I agree that "strictly" your assessment is corect it's more complex, I think you're being a bit literal; it's just another command. most of my builds have hundreds of commands.