It is. The Go language devs should just own it and say "No". Will the arguments shift somewhere else? Maybe but maybe the "Go needs generics" folks will just go away.
>The Go language devs should just own it and say "No"
Which is the grown up, honest, thing to do.
But I'm not sure about the other thing you mention:
"Maybe but maybe the "Go needs generics" folks will just go away."
Why would they go away?
They ask for Generics because they have found some use for Go (say, because it has a OK standard library, or decent tooling and momentum compared to alternatives), but also found a need this feature.
Neither the "use of Go" they found, nor their need for generics will disappear if the language devs say "no". If anything, as stakeholders in the languge (a user is a stakeholder) they'd be even more pressed to change the language dev's mind -- down to the fork point.
How many years to go before go users/developers outside of google will fork "go lang" the way node.js users/developers did ?
the go-lang team at google is very smart. It's not that they have a huge amount of high-priority work other than generics. Why don't they address a summary of the sentiment on hacker news on generics ?
If you're a programmer, your life is made easier if you have access to generics.
If you're a language developer, your life is made harder if you have to add generics.
And if your language gets all the people that are easily satisfied with something "static and faster to write than C" why go the extra mile?
Especially if your goal is not building a commercially succesful language, or an advanced language, or a language to solve 2014's problems, but just to hack on what you have created.
Besides, being a great programmer and a great language designer are two different skills. Would a language created by Linus be that good?
