Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That link has been debunked over and over and over. The only point that post is making is that generics have a cost . Are you saying that is false? > Being dishonest will just alienate even more people. What are you hoping to achieve by insulting a large group of people? If your goal is to alienate them, then surely that is an effective tactic.
> The only point that post is making is that generics have a cost. Are you saying that is false? Did you actually read the article? > The generic dilemma is this: do you want slow programmers, slow compilers and bloated binaries, or slow execution times? Wrong. Additionally, not having Generics has a cost, too. People might disagree which cost is higher (Generics vs. no Generics), but acting as if there was a lower c…
Sure there are, including the following possibilities: 1) There are situations in which generics are a net benefit and situations in which generics are a net cost, and currently Go's target are is the latter, but because of drift in what people what in given domains, it evolves toward the former, 2) New advances in understanding of language design and implementation change the tradeoffs of generics such that they are a net benefit in places where currently they are a net cost, 3) The reason generics are a net cost in the current situation of Go isn't fundamental as a featre, but a matter of opportunity cost given other things that were and are being implemented in Go that implementing generics would tradeoff. A future implementation that doesn't disrupt non-generic-using code once other higher-priority features are implemented wouldn't be a net cost. But that's farther out than Go's current roadmap.
> Why not just be honest and tell your users that Generics will never arrive?
Because its not honest to state a decision that hasn't actually been made.