Replacing Clever Code with Unremarkable Code in Go

I didn't put much code into the article, but ask me if you'd like more details on exactly what I'm talking about -- in terms of real code.

I think this is one of the really great things about Go. Some detractors ask "There is so much to be gained by having generics! What would be lost if Go had generics? Nothing! Ergo, Go is wrong to not have generics".

This line of argument is flawed. Go curbs the ability of people to write crazy (and ultimately mentally expensive) abstractions. The lack of generics in Go is very a good thing. Especially when it comes to collaborating on a large unfamiliar code base.

I have been productive in Go and haven't missed the ability to write generic code so far. Usually it turns out there is another way to achieve what you want without them. If there isn't, maybe I'm trying to solve the wrong problem, or it is the wrong language for the task.

Completely OT: Is that climber clip genuine, if so is there a better source?

Edit: Answered by wooster, thanks.

I wanted to say this but couldn't find the right words. The author manages to do it. This is something I wrote: https://github.com/adnaan/hamster. The whole experience of programming in Go is like moving from point A to point B in a straight line.

> The channel is the analog to the Unix shell’s | character.

This sentence was italicized, and rightfully so. I've written a few small Go programs, but I haven't run into a problem where I thought, "A channel is definitely the right solution here." Yet I love and feel quite comfortable with shuffling data through big shell pipelines. Perhaps I'll think of a channel next time I'm reaching for a pipeline.