Don't keep type safety then. Think of Go as half-way between Python and Haskell in that respect. Types are great when they're useful, but they're not required.
If you’re serious, that’s... the worst solution I’ve heard yet.
That’s the same mistake C did with void, Java did with Object and corrected with generics in 1.5, just called interface{} this time.
And while with python and Java, even if I circumvent the type system, I can still use annotations (see typed python, or JetBrains @Contract, Google’s @IntRange, etc), with Go I have nothing of that sort.
Types are useful to provide safety, if your type system has to be turnt off, then I am losing all that safety, and might as well code in PHP (although they also* saw that mistake, and are fixing it now, with 7.0 and later).
That’s the same mistake C did with void, Java did with Object and corrected with generics in 1.5, just called interface{} this time.
And while with python and Java, even if I circumvent the type system, I can still use annotations (see typed python, or JetBrains @Contract, Google’s @IntRange, etc), with Go I have nothing of that sort.
Types are useful to provide safety, if your type system has to be turnt off, then I am losing all that safety, and might as well code in PHP (although they also* saw that mistake, and are fixing it now, with 7.0 and later).