[horsemans]

It's entirely possible that, through some strange quirks of circumstance, I've managed to avoid every problem space that would make me wish for generics.

In spite of that, it's unlikely that I've written implementations where using interface{} would be easier to read and reason about than not using interface{}. And the experience of the author whose blog post we're commenting on tracks with mine: "In my 5+ years working in Go, I can probably count on one hand the number of times that I felt like I really needed generics." I can too, just without using any fingers :-)

[kodablah]

I feel the similar way, though I wouldn't be so brave to say I didn't ever use interface{}. I think we all work around slices and maps being the only generic containers and don't know we do. I think everyone will find that while they didn't need generics, they will help them when using utility libraries. Java 1.4 people thought the same.

I expect well-curated libraries to come about that will really simplify some otherwise difficult problems for people (e.g. task/object pooling). I'm even toying with a futures impl at https://github.com/cretz/fut, but I wouldn't use it in place of channels in most cases.

[horsemans]

Yes. It would be short-sighted to dismiss them out of hand, and it's possible that generics will provide a level of expressiveness and readability I haven't anticipated yet. I'm fairly bearish on it for now.