[pcwalton]

> If it trusted the user just a bit more, it would be making many of the same mistakes other languages make, which Go is trying to avoid.

Can you explain with an example that would apply to Go how introducing generics to a language was making a mistake? Be specific.

[stcredzero]

Can you explain with an example that would apply to Go how introducing generics to a language was making a mistake? Be specific.

These things are epiphenomenal, and have to do with what happens in large codebases over a long time, with lots of programmers. It's a fallacy to suppose that neat StackOverflow sized examples are some kind of a evidence gold standard. The problems I've encountered with C++ templates have to do with the interaction of several things at once, in places I'd have to dig out of version control, in codebases I can't share. So no, I'm not signing up for doing that work for you for free.

[pcwalton]

I'm not asking for examples of bad interactions between C++ templates and other features of C++--there are tons of those. I'm asking for examples of languages in which implementing simple generics was a bad idea in retrospect.

(I don't think there are any such examples, because simple ML-style generics yield a lot of power for negligible drawback, and I hope that future versions of Go add them.)

[pjmlp]

I won't happen, there was this presentation some time ago that the language design was done and their focus was improving the runtime and tooling.

Hence why I decided to stop arguing about Go's lack of generics and rather advocate it for those that search for a C + GC with improved type safety.

For the rest of us there are better options.