[Silfen]

My concern is less about writing a bunch of separate functions, but rather the way this hampers the abstractions that are available to you everywhere in the language. You don't have map or fold! And that's only the very tip of the iceberg.

[jopsen]

Yeah, I wish go had more functional stuff, like .map(), .filter(), etc.

On the other hand I enjoy that when I pickup a package someone wrote there is not a bunch of different meta-programming using templates.

Generics sometimes lead people (including myself) to over-engineer solutions... usually because we want as much compile safety as possible. But at what cost in complexity.

[erik_seaberg]

I'd rather read x.filter().map() than read the loops someone had to expand them into by hand.

[ryanplant-au]

I groan every time I have to implement the 15th type-specific loop implementation of what I'd do with a single map or fold in Ruby/Elm/Haskell/JS/TS/Crystal/every other language I use. It's not a lot of effort but it's a lot of mess and cruft.

[cube2222]

Check out goderive

[z0r]

linking this for you: https://github.com/awalterschulze/goderive

i wish i could laugh, but i can't. the lengths people will go to work within such an impoverished language, and by means so antithetical to the go philosophy.