[jasode]

>recommends to avoid [...] template metaprogramming,

Fyi...the Google style guide doesn't ban generics/templates. It's discouraging the "template metaprogramming" which is a technique beyond parameterized types (generics) ... e.g. using recursion in Turing Complete template programming to calculate compile-time values.

If we're talking about just generics, here's example code from Google Inc's sparsehash: https://github.com/sparsehash/sparsehash/tree/master/src/spa...

It uses generic type parameters. If you ask the author if the library would have been easier and "less complex" to write if generics language feature were removed from C++, I think we'd be certain the author would say "no."

Even without asking the author, if anyone believes the library is suffers "simplicity debt" because it uses generics, they can fork the code, rewrite it, and then prove to skeptics that the hashing library was much clearer and more maintainable without generics.

[bredov]

I didn't say google banned templates, you quoted me yourself, and the quote states exactly what you're saying, that template metaprogramming is recommended to be avoided.

Go isn't against generics, they are open to discussion about adding them if right approach to implement them without adding much of extra complexity would be found. Generics do add complexity, it is bearable in most cases, especially given the benefits, but it still exists.

Authors don't want to end up with something that C++ has, where you have to manually limit yourself in order for your code to not be too complex and unmaintainable, at the same moment, adding templates just to have them won't add any immediate benefit of large magnitude.

[jasode]

>I didn't say google banned templates,

Well, your response was to grasleya and he wrote: "Why is it that relatively simple and ubiquitous language features like [...] generics are [...] an unacceptable amount of complexity?" [...] Are there any Java, C++, etc. developers arguing for the removal of these features [...]?"

And your reply was: "Yes, google c++ style guide recommends to avoid [...] template metaprogramming,"

... and therefore, that makes it look like you're conflating "generics" with "template metaprogramming".

If your intention was to respond with a random tidbit unrelated to the proposed generics for Go, it means you're just introducing a non-sequitur and confusing readers trying to reasonably follow the context of the thread. The op (grasleya) wasn't talking about "template metaprogramming" to compare to "generics" in Go.