[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.