Pretty much every article that is posted about Go ends up in a never ending discussion about the absence of generics, which completely drowns the discussions about Go. As a result, the material on the web about Go has a very high noise/signal ratio, which is unfortunate.
Hopefully, the Go team will see this as one more reason to add generics to their language, but until they do that, Go will remain a niche language with a severely crippled potential.
> Pretty much every article that is posted about Go ends up in a never ending discussion about the absence of generics
Well either a lot of developers there looking at Go code are crazy, whiny and in general unpleasant human beings that like to make others' lives difficult or ... maybe it is a problem worth discussing.
I have to credit this as being one of the more original arguments for adding generics to Go: we should do it because it will increase the signal/noise ratio in discussions about Go.
(Personally, I don't mind the ongoing discussions about generics in Go, I just wish they were less repetitive. It's very easy to say "add generics to Go!" It's a little bit harder to actually do it well.)
Hopefully, the Go team will see this as one more reason to add generics to their language, but until they do that, Go will remain a niche language with a severely crippled potential.