> Do you have a web article that actually says that?
That says what? That they don't find not writing generics problematic? Rob Pike has said so himself. The article you've just read says exactly this[1].
[1] "With no generics, you are discouraged from making big, overly-general abstractions. This might be on purpose."
> One can write in "that manner" whether generics was there or not.
I have a feeling we're talking past each other. I'm saying that if you're not going to use generics, there's no point paying the costs of having generics. Not paying the cost means you get a simpler language, which has run-on benefits I mentioned before.
I'm not saying that generics are bad, or that emulating generics with copy & paste is better than generics.
That says what? That they don't find not writing generics problematic? Rob Pike has said so himself. The article you've just read says exactly this[1].
[1] "With no generics, you are discouraged from making big, overly-general abstractions. This might be on purpose."
> One can write in "that manner" whether generics was there or not.
I have a feeling we're talking past each other. I'm saying that if you're not going to use generics, there's no point paying the costs of having generics. Not paying the cost means you get a simpler language, which has run-on benefits I mentioned before.
I'm not saying that generics are bad, or that emulating generics with copy & paste is better than generics.