[entrope]

You keep posting that. Do you understand the difference between that and "we anticipate that Go will never add generic methods"? What they actually said shows epistemic humility and recognizes that they might change their mind.

[tines]

Hi! I'm a human being that is trying to understand the world and make friends along the way. I see you are too! Pleased to meet you.

You asked the question

> Where did "they" say "we" didn't need generics?

And I (re)posted a quote from them, which sounds to me like, at the time, they believed that "we" Go users didn't need generics.

They may have changed their mind, which is totally fine! But I do think it sounds like the person you were replying to wasn't commenting in bad faith or misunderstanding or fighting a straw man as you posted. Seems like a reasonable interpretation of what the Go devs had said at one point. To each his own though!

[entrope]

Hi! If you want people to think you are a human, you should not mistake one of them for an entirely different one, and you should not refer to yourself in the third person.

[tines]

Ah, I guess to err isn't human after all :)

[ncruces]

Do you understand the difference between generics and generic methods?

We already had generics when they wrote "we don't anticipate adding generic methods."

[tines]

The OP didn't mention generics or generic methods :) They referred to something that was added, after the Go team didn't anticipate adding it. Sounds like a fair point to me!