[AnimalMuppet]

> All languages that tried to fight complexity either grew up to adopt complexity and stay relevant, or faded away.

> Programming languages don't get complex just for fun, their designers are tackling actual relevant issues.

Yes and yes.

> Go community doesn't seem to have learned much from the past.

Well... if you start with something simple, and complexity comes, you can still try to keep it as simple as possible. But if you started with something that was already complex (but complex in ways that your theory said it needed to be, not in the ways that the real world said it needed to be), and you try to fix that, you wind up with something really complicated. Ditto if you start off with complexity to handle all the use cases of the past.

Go started off simple, and is letting real-world use push them into becoming more complicated. That's a defensible approach, even today.

[lurr]

> That's a defensible approach, even today

Not if you are dishonest about it. Not if you refuse to learn from the past couple decades.

[AnimalMuppet]

In what way is Go dishonest about it? In what way have they refused to learn from the past couple decades?

[lurr]

I think insisting that they need more use cases for generics is dishonest when you consider they used generics to implement library data types themselves.

I don't mean they are outright lying, or are bad people or anything like that.