Have you ever used a library where the company who paid the development went "whoops, not our product anymore! poof goes the paid team, website, the community forums, the knowledgebase" ?

Usually nobody continues to maintain these after 90% of the workforce behind them gets fired and the surrounding infrastructure disappears.

Software is almost worthless without the brains behind it.

> As for generics, they're just nothing more than a developer convenience,

So you propose people write the 100,000th implementation of linked lists, maps, etc. because what they want to stick into it is not class A but class B?

> Also they're planned in Go for next year.

The fact it took years to plan them instead of including them right away is a nice proof of how ill-conceived Go is as a language.

It might have been nice as a toy to teach aspiring programmers. It shouldn't have ended up in production software.

> Damn, these are some stupid arguments.

Thanks. I consider yours as stupid too. How much progress exactly have we achieved with this wording now?

- slices and maps are already generic in Go

- Go has great performance, great readability and write ability, and that's valuable for everyone, not just beginners

- Go is a language, not a library

> The fact it took years to plan them instead of including them right away is a nice proof of how ill-conceived Go is as a language.

It's not. Really.

I am not. I genuinely think Google is evil and should be dismantled.

> - slices and maps are already generic in Go

So people are supposed to not rewrite 2 of the possibly infinite types of data structures and classes, and constantly rewrite all the rest of them?

> - Go has great performance, great readability and write ability, and that's valuable for everyone, not just beginners

Enough other languages do as well.

> Go is a language, not a library

If Google abandons the funding it does not matter what it technically is. No money, no developers.