[blablabla123]

There have been many lengthy disucssions about generics on the Go mailing list. Haven't checked them in a while but the essence used to be that generics are difficult. C++ has really powerful generics but unfortunately C++ templates are in many respects a nightmare. Java templates on the other hand are not really powerful. The idea was to wait until someone would come up with a powerful generics concept that is nice for the developer.

[pjmlp]

Generics exist in multiple forms since CLU (1974).

To reduce them to what C++ and Java implementations offer, is just being ignorant from history of programming languages.

[frowaway001]

> being ignorant from history of programming languages

Isn't that Go's design principle?

[NateDad]

People in the 70's knew a lot more about programming than you seem to think.

[frowaway001]

Yes, but they weren't so self absorbed to dismiss the 40 years of experience in front of them.

[NateDad]

Not all languages need to have all the features of Haskell or Rust. Just as not All languages need to be dynamically typed. Just because a language is missing your favorite feature(s), doesn't mean it's a bad language. And maybe you have tried writing programs in go and didn't like it. That's fine. But there's no need to insult everyone who uses language. Every language has its niche, even perpetual punching bags like vb and php.

[frowaway001]

That's a nice strawman you are beating there.

> But there's no need to insult everyone who uses language.

Is that from Go's social media handbook? I have never ever seen users of a language complain about perceived insults as consistently as Go. It seems like it's the only argument they are able to make if they disagree with other people.