[imetatroll]

You can define methods on structs which is not unlike classes.

You can define an interface with methods that allow objects to be processed in a more generic fashion.

I think that more than anything it would require a change of mindset that people understandably don't want to deal with.

[alexkavon]

There's also always a package to handle that issue. [0][1][2]

As well as other options. [3]

I like to imagine that the "no generics, no way" crowd would never use the stairway in their building if the elevator broke down.

[0] https://github.com/clipperhouse/gen [1] https://github.com/cheekybits/genny [2] https://github.com/cosmos72/gomacro [3] https://appliedgo.net/generics/

[pjmlp]

Ah, but the generics building was conceived with an elevator to start with, and it will eventually be repaired.

Go's building architects decided an elevator was superfluous, as everyone should walk 20 stores high every single day, it is good for their health.

[alexkavon]

More like Go’s building comes building-agnostic, whether you have 20 stories or not. Anything you need (such as a generic elevator) can be added on. No need to walk 20 stories every day because you can just add what you need in through reusable packages.

[pjmlp]

Actually no, because in the end it will look like an Escher building.

[newalexandria]

Maybe language communities are formed from people that need or don't-need those kind of affordances. e.g. Imagine the office environment you'd have if all your cohort were people that walked 20 flights without making it an issue.

[zaphirplane]

Well yes I wouldn’t move into a building without an elevator if I felt I needed an elevator at that height