Yeah, it's kind of interesting how two extreme camps have evolved out of the "controversial" decision not to include generics in Go 1.0:

* Camp 1: generics will always be horrible, Go is right not to include it, it's too complex, Go is meant to be simple, etc.

* Camp 2: I will never use Go because it doesn't have generics, serious languages have generics, etc.

When in reality, both camps are pretty much wrong. Yes, generics are useful in a lot of places. But they also add no value in a lot of places. It's really on you to pick the tool you want to use. If you really want generics, pick C++ or Java instead. If you couldn't care less, Go is an option. It's much more fluid than this binarization of the topic has made it out to be.