[georgemcbay]

What makes things magical or not (the way I think of magical) isn't about the theory of the feature but rather how they are implemented and how much is hidden from the person using them in terms of code complexity and just overall work being done relative to what they think they did.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the "theory of generics", but when generics first came on the scene for C++ back during the time period I used to program primarily in C and C++ they were very magical. Not on the run-time side where the eventual result of any sane compiler is easy to understand, but magical on the compile-time side where when using them it was nearly impossible to determine how much time they would add to the overall compilation and how complex and unreadable the error messages would be if you had a problem. When you make a single simple syntax error and the compiler presents you with an error that is 2 pages long that is the result of an implementation that is, IMO, very "magical".

[dkarapetyan]

There is a bit of contradiction in your definition then. I don't think anyone using Go understands how the compiler does all the transformations necessary to get from Go to machine code. In that sense Go as a whole is pretty magical but you seem perfectly happy with that.

Modern application programmers and even system programmers by your definition rely on a lot of "magic". Even the machine code these days is a layer or two removed from the actual metal with all the caching and microcode that reside on the CPU.

[pjmlp]

Generics appeared in programming languages with CLU back in 1974 followed by many others, C++ was hardly the first language to get them.

The first version of STL was actually done in Ada.

Don't mistake generics in programming languages with what C++ does.

[nickik]

My probken with your "what avg programmer find easy to understand" stick is that this basiclly means, never add anything new.

Many thing common today where 'magic' once. So the line where something is magic is kind of meaningless.