Go has contempt for generics

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 05/29/2010 04:42 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> In any case, while I would agree with you that it generally works better for
> a language to have generics of some kind, there are plenty of languages
> which get by just fine without them.

Yah, it's not the generics per se. That's why I mentioned "response to 
problems usually tackled by generics in contemporary languages". More 
dynamic languages achieve things in different ways. But Go seems to 
claim that built-in arrays, hashes, and channels are all you'll ever 
need that's generic. I believe that's a mistake.

Andrei