Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused. I never called it a deal-breaker, just a surprise. The language designers, in their FAQ, acknowledge it as an opinionated gap where their own opinion hasn't been fixed, so I'm not imagining it as a gap either. Your comment about "real-world" code is even more puzzling, as if all "real-world" code is somehow equivalent in abstraction needs. There are guys who've written serious code running in billions o…
> In the space I work in - enterprise applications integrating large, disparate systems where you have zero control over interfaces and data formats but somehow need to get everything talking together nicely, generics are invaluable in structuring your code and making it reusable. Luckily for you, Go already solves these problems incredibly naturally! Unfortunately, you haven't looked into how Go solves those problem…
Re: Go is amazing, period.
#241I'm not sure interfaces are really the "incredibly natural" solution. Why, for example, should a container care about what interface its contained element implements? A list is really agnostic of such things and forcing an interface on the item is silly, just to contain it.