Again I ask, why insist that go become the same as all the other languages when you can just use one of those? Why demand less diversity?
You have many many choices that work the way you want. Go use them, why try to dictate to us that we can't have the choice we want? We disagree about the value of these things, and their trade-offs. That's what diversity is for, you have languages that work your way. Why insist that one of the few that doesn't has become like all the others?
If your code did not use generics, it can continue to not use generics. If you did not interact with any libraries whose need for generics was apparent, you can continue to do that too and the libraries you were using aren't going anywhere.
But just because you don't interact with a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and the problem has historically been solved with dynamic downcasting, code generation, or copy-pasting, all of which result in codebases far harder to read and understand than most other languages. For these problems, you are not trading off generic code vs simple code, you are trading off generic code vs incomprehensible code. It is great that you have never needed a tree-map instead of a hash-map, but many have.
Go's simplicity is in many ways it being the spiritual successor to C, and even C has generics nowadays because they are an enormous value add.
“ If your code did not use generics, it can continue to not use generics. If you did not interact with any libraries whose need for generics was apparent, you can continue to do that too and the libraries you were using aren't going anywhere.”
This shows a profound lack of understanding of software development at scale.
You're arguing a strawman. No one insists that Go become the same as all the other languages (which are themselves nowhere near the same as each other). People are just asking for generics.
C++, Java, C#, and Haskell all have generics and are still wildly different languages even with respect to their approach to generics.