[mattnewton]

I don't understand this attitude. I do use other languages, and I can tell you type polymorphism is not a mistake. Complicated architectures full of abstraction are a mistake, which you can limit without sacrificing the ability for me to make a type-safe generic function.

[stcredzero]

I can tell you type polymorphism is not a mistake.

It's a particular trade-off. Some opine that it's not the right trade off. You disagree.

Complicated architectures full of abstraction are a mistake, which you can limit without sacrificing the ability for me to make a type-safe generic function.

From what I've seen, the other mechanisms for limiting over-exuberant abstraction don't work well enough over the long term, at scale.

[pcwalton]

> From what I've seen, the other mechanisms for limiting over-exuberant abstraction don't work well enough over the long term, at scale.

Can you name a specific example of people using ML-style generics (i.e. no typeclasses, no module system) to achieve "over-exuberant abstraction"?

[stcredzero]

Nope. You got me there. I'm not so sure that would be cheap to implement in Golang, though. Also, your comment prompted me to find and read this:

http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~jacobm/pubs/templates.html