Exactly. I work with rust and ocaml all day long, but reading a Golang codebase in contrast has always been such a pleasure because it’s just so easy to read. I hope generics don’t change that. There was really nothing like Golang out there.
Go already had generic structures anyways. Go maps supported generics. Or did you always use map[interface{}]interface{} everywhere for the purity of your anti-generics position ?
The built-in types that supported generics were limited to the essentials; slices, arrays, maps, etc. Those basic building blocks were obviously sufficient to allow Go to reach the level of success it has. It's not an argument to allow for unlimited generics.
I think this line of reasoning is detrimental for yourself:
- noone is forcing you to use generics in your go programs.
- if you are running outdated OS because you don't like some UX change, you might as well consider changing OS.
Avoiding updating to a new version of OSX that stabs you in the face is a reasonable thing to do, despite it being a new feature.