It is amusing that you consider either generics or durability to be "nitpicks." One is a feature that is present in almost every static language of at least the last two decades, and another is a fundamental need of most database users, relational or not. Unless by nitpick you mean, "something I personally don't care about," I think your nitpick-classifier is a bit busted.

I don't consider the features (or lack thereof) to be nitpicks. They are valid criticisms, but they have had their own very extensive discussions, and we are all very aware of them.

Bringing that into a thread regarding a very cool set of examples regarding the core features of the language, isn't very constructive (at least IMO).

Ah. I see where our disagreement comes from. I do not believe that everyone is very aware of these issues. I believe go users are, but since this entire thread is evangelistic, there are people here who are not currently go users who are not aware. The exclamations of surprise at my provided example are proof enough of this for my satisfaction.

You do realize that people who look at the tutorial will discover the lack of generics on their own, right? And that if they share the "my God, lack of generics is a war crime!" attitude, they're bound to discover it literally right away?

This argument can equally be used to protest the saying of anything good about the language, since obviously people who try the language will discover this good thing quickly if it's useful. This is not a compelling argument to me.