> "go generate" is an half assed macro feature that shouldn't even part of any modern language.

Agreed.

> And it has absolutely nothing to do with genericity, your argument is a fallacy.

In arguments against adding generics, it's been cited numerous times that you can achieve similar code reuse via macros. It's been a while since I looked at the awfulness of `go generate` so I'm not going to attempt to demonstrate the equivalency with that syntax, but here's how you'd achieve something similar to genericity with macros in C:

Instead of:

    T swap<T>(T* left, T* right) {
        T temp = left;
        *left = *right;
        *right = temp;
    }

    ...

    int a = 1, b = 2;
    char c = 'c', d = 'd';

    swap<int>(&a, &b);
    swap<char>(&c, &d);

You do:

    #declare_swap_function(T) T swap_ ## T(T* left, T* right) {\
        T temp = left;\
        *left = *right;\
        *right = temp;\
    }

    ...

    declare_swap_function(int);
    declare_swap_function(char);

    ...

    int a = 1, b = 2;
    char c = 'c', d = 'd';

    swap_int(&a, &b);
    swap_char(&c, &d);

So, macros do have something to do with genericity.

Macros are certainly a crappy way to achieve genericity, however, especially since the original reason go didn't include generics was to compile in a single pass, and adding a preprocessor adds another pass.

It's clear you were ignorant here. That's fine--I don't expect you to know everything. But I think it's reasonable to expect that if you don't know what someone is talking about, you approach the conversation with some humility and ask questions before accusing someone of a logical fallacy. Ignorance is fine, arrogance isn't.