Where did "they" say "we" didn't need generics? That sounds like a bad faith / misinterpretation / straw man; as someone else pointed out, they postponed generics until they figured out the use cases and whatnot.

Remember that the generics implementations in other languages (like Java) take up half the spec + implementation - that's not something that Go wanted.

▲

tines 8 hours ago | parent [-]

From another commenter here:

> The post quotes the Go FAQ as saying, "we do not anticipate that Go will ever add generic methods".

▲

entrope 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You keep posting that. Do you understand the difference between that and "we anticipate that Go will never add generic methods"? What they actually said shows epistemic humility and recognizes that they might change their mind.

▲

tines 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Hi! I'm a human being that is trying to understand the world and make friends along the way. I see you are too! Pleased to meet you.

You asked the question

> Where did "they" say "we" didn't need generics?

And I (re)posted a quote from them, which sounds to me like, at the time, they believed that "we" Go users didn't need generics.

They may have changed their mind, which is totally fine! But I do think it sounds like the person you were replying to wasn't commenting in bad faith or misunderstanding or fighting a straw man as you posted. Seems like a reasonable interpretation of what the Go devs had said at one point. To each his own though!

▲

ncruces 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you understand the difference between generics and generic methods?

We already had generics when they wrote "we don't anticipate adding generic methods."

	▲	tines 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The OP didn't mention generics or generic methods :) They referred to something that was added, after the Go team didn't anticipate adding it. Sounds like a fair point to me!