[leetrout]

> Go did not have generic types at the time so I excluded it immediately

I wonder how many people are missing out on Go for a feature they wouldnt miss 80-90% of the time?

[christophilus]

I’ll be honest. It kept me away from Go for far too long. Now, I really appreciate Go, and hope the new generics implementation doesn’t ruin the culture. I do wish Go had sum types, and that it didn’t have null. Those are my main gripes.

[WalterBright]

Generic code is written with D a lot more than I'd originally anticipated.

[leetrout]

Oh I dont deny that at all. D is on my list of languages to try precisely because it is more powerful / flexible than Go (and thank you for making it).

Just surprises me how quickly people write it off. Horses for courses!

[schveiguy]

The only way you can be saying this is if you haven't experienced metaprogramming in D. C++ does not compare at all. Generics do not compare at all.

You can take D metaprogramming from my cold dead hands.

[leetrout]

If you were in the authors shoes and you disliked C++ templates would you also have written off Go without trying it, though?

No argument on going from D to something else but to not know either and not even try Go is what surprises me.

[he_the_great]

Yeah I do much in C# and almost never use generics. And when I do it is almost always not what I want.

D has me fooled and I can't imagine Go choosing to go further in D's direction over C#. I feel sorry for them.

[travv0]

You almost never use List<T>? Dictionary<TKey, TValue>? IEnumerable<T>?

[he_the_great]

Those don't matter, because while you can't build your own in Go, the built in types provide the same functionality.

[GoblinSlayer]

I was puzzled by strange linguistic ideas of go's designers. The reference to the English language can't justify go's syntax.

[leetrout]

Do you have an example top of mind?

[GoblinSlayer]

Array of bytes []byte being English, but byte array byte[] being not English.