[drvd]

> I am [...] quite experienced in Java and Js/Ts. > I never jumped the Go bandwagon because of the lack of generics. > Can I now try Go?

Probably no. You still would be very disappointed. Go's take at writing and maintaining software often is pretty repugnant to people with a strong Java or JavaScript mindset. If missing user defined parametric polymorphism ("generics") was a reason to not even _try_ it you will be offended by by other things Go does in its particular way. Be it error handling, pattern matching, concurrency, mutability, etc. Basically if you try to write Java (or JavaScript) programs in Go you will suffer and hate Go. Same for C++/Rust aficionados. Go's newly added "generics" still come without "library support".

[BatteryMountain]

I actually agree with you.

I'm mostly a C# developer that uses a ton of generics and when I tried Go previously I was disappointed that it didn't have generics. But I continued on. And so I found a handful of other things that would irritate me or would be an inconvenience versus doing the same thing in C#. So generics alone is not the main problem here, it is going from a C#/Java mindset to a Go mindset. In some way we would probably get bored with Go because it is so simple/easy and not much to mess up, versus the super complex object empires in C#/Java land.

So the problem is not really a problem, go is just a different tool for a different kind of problem or if your brain works in a specific way - but I wouldn't call it a problem at all. In a way, go is what Buddhism is to other (more fully featured) religions. I think if you get proficient with you can probably have a very peaceful programming experience and not fight against the system (like in Java, half the battle is just battling the tooling).

Thanks for bringing this up, will give Go another look again, its been a while!

[codeflo]

I personally don’t get bored when a tool is “too simple”, but when it forces me to do things by hand that the machine should be able to do. Like manually specializing a generic concept. I didn’t become a programmer out of love for repetitive tasks!

[BatteryMountain]

For some people building "complex" things is how they attach sense of accomplishment to programming. If it is not complex, it is just boring or just a toy, hence not worthy of their attention.

Golang is waaay simpler than other languages, as some were designed to be arcane from the start and other became that way over time. So Go's stewards have been doing a good job of enforcing their philosophy so that it doesn't become a bloated monster.

[klabb3]

This feels like an unusual opinion. Lots of people from different backgrounds are happy with Go. And it's praised particularly for its concurrency model.

That said, generics are still new and won't have the strongest library support for a while, and it takes a bit for idioms to settle. It wouldn't be unreasonable to wait for ~a year.

[zerocount]

I don't understand why you're lumping JavaScript in with Java. These are very different languages and are likely to produce very different mindsets.

[detaro]

Is either of the mindsets close to the Go mindset?

[lolive]

I think here JavaScript is a misnomer for Typescript. [At least that's how I did read the parent post]