[2h]

> you end up boxing your values to place into collections rather than letting the compiler monomorphize it.

you know that Go has interfaces right? and I dont just mean the "any" interface. you can write your own interface similar to io.Reader and others, then add types that implement that interface, then no type matching is needed.

> non-generic legacy cruft

AKA normal, fine code. generic code is not some magic pixie dust that makes bad code into good code. plenty of awful bloated slow generic code around as well.

[vore]

If you are using interfaces, the value is necessarily boxed as the storage for the value may be heterogeneous. Once a value is typed as e.g. `io.Reader`, dispatching to its methods necessarily requires a vtable lookup (i.e. runtime cost!). Compare this to parametric polymorphism where you can avoid the type erasure and perform static dispatch at compile time. Though, unfortunately, Go's implementation of generics ("GC shape with stenciling" instead of full monomorphization) still ends up incurring some runtime cost.

With regards to your second point, there are definitely situations where generics are vastly preferred: type-safe collections being a big one. For instance, the standard library containers (https://pkg.go.dev/container) are still non-generic with no generic versions in the standard library yet. This is the kind of cruft I mean: generic collections can be turned into concrete collections with type safety, but not the other way around. I make no claims about use of generics making your code being absolutely good or bad, but I do make claims that use of generics can make your code less error-prone and more safe.

[svnpenn]

> I make no claims about use of generics making your code being absolutely good or bad, but I do make claims that use of generics can make your code less error-prone and safe.

Right. this is the issue right here. people only see that Go didn't have generics, and they never stop for a second to think WHY Go didn't have them. Generics have an implementation cost for the Go project, and maintenance cost for the Go project, and end user negative impacts in regards to time and memory. but advocates often dont know or care about these drawback, and only howl that GENERICS ARE MISSING until they are added, consequences be damned.

I'm just saying that while generics are useful in some cases, they are not always the right answer, and it shouldn't just be assumed that every language needs them, nor that any non-generic language "sucks".

[brickteacup]

> stop for a second to think WHY Go didn't have them

I have thought about this. I concluded that Go doesn't have generics because it's a poorly designed language whose designers elected to ignore decades of progress in programming language design for... reasons. Hence why you have to do the moral equivalent of passing around void pointers and checking return codes in $current_year

[alex_lav]

> I'm just saying that while generics are useful in some cases, they are not always the right answer, and it shouldn't just be assumed that every language needs them, nor that any non-generic language "sucks".

It's funny to me, because this comment chain exists because I said I got tired of rewriting the same functions with minute changes, the exact problem generics is intended to solve. I didn't say anything sucked, or even that I didn't like Go, just that this one aspect got tiring.

And yet, this small comment lead into a person feeling their language was being attacked.

[vore]

If you like Go, that’s great. But stop pretending people don’t know what they’re talking about when they talk about generics or haven’t thought about it.

[emodendroket]

What kind of argument is this? Nobody says it’s “magical pixie dust that makes bad code into good code.” It’s a way to avoid writing repetitive code over and over and the runtime cost can be insignificant depending on implementation.