I'd call that disillusionment with bad type systems, which are indeed unnecessarily complex. We have yet to achieve a typing "nirvana", but we're getting closer IMO.

From my experience this simplicity is something you pay the price along the way - development is harder (a good typing gives you a lot of hints about functionality and puts bounds on developers on how to use it) and more error prone (less stuff gets caught by the type checker, instead you find it out in runtime).

Of course it is good to be reasonable - some people completely fly off into the FP world and instead of actually building working stuff they think all day about some clever abstraction and types to model it.

I am almost 50, and my point of view on Go from 2012 has hardly changed.

http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4554#comment-71504

At least it does generics now.

> At least it does generics now

Not in gccgo

Indeed, as you see on other remarks from me I am aware of it, my point was about the language as designed, not the implementations ecosystem.

TinyGo also doesn't do them.