Go has contempt for generics

[Walter Bright]

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Sure, you _can_ use a language without generics (and many other features) 
> and get a lot done, but I'd argue having simplicity as your prime directive 
> tends to lead to an inefficient tool for the programmer. Simplicity should 
> be a goal, but there are times that it should be overridden by other goals.

Another way to say that is that if the cost of simplifying the language is 
pushing the complexity off onto the user code, it's a poor tradeoff.