And it would have been far harder to read for those new to the generic code base. Complex abstractions make people feel smart, they rarely make code easier to understand or maintain.
I don’t agree with you, but I could be wrong. There are plenty of languages that are aligned with your point of view. I like go because it was going a different direction, and I hope that doesn’t change. You can use Haskell, scala, typescript, etc to get what you are looking for.
Even for your own single-person projects - if you get fancy with the code, 6 months later you find it's a lot harder to get back into and mess around with than if you had written the code as though you were presenting it to a beginner.
For merge mortals it is a tool hard not to misuse full of hidden traps and debugging of code written even by the very best developers (surprise - it has bugs too) is a challenge.
Go just did a step towards C++, even if a tiny one.
I jest, but I also don't. All the best developers I know strongly prefer footgun-free libraries and primitives. The advantage is that you don't _need_ to spend brain cycles checking and double checking that it was written correctly, and when you want to make changes you don't need unwind an elaborate abstraction to stretch it further.
In martial arts (I'm a second degree black belt), the third move you learn is the round house kick (turned leg kick - the first two moves are the punch and the straight leg kick). At the olympic level, 70% of all points are scored using a roundhouse kick.
The other funny thing about the roundhouse kick is how much you can learn from watching someone do a single one. You can tell the difference between someone with 2 years of experience and 3 years of experience, and you can _also_ tell the difference between someone with 15 years of experience and 20 years of experience.
The point of this story being that masters are masters not because they can do elaborate techniques, but because their command over the simplest techniques is superlative.
I've found in life that this applies to pretty much everything. Martial arts, programming, painting, cooking, and effectively any task that definitively has some people who are better than others.
But I know what you mean. I've worked on Scala code for years and seen less mature developers over-engineer things and get way too clever with the type system. Scala is a really practical and powerful industrial language that requires some maturity to use the abstractions sparingly. It's only good for the top 5% of developers.
However, Go doesn't have such a powerful type system. It looks like the Go designers implemented relatively simple generics. You have to draw the line somewhere. If simple Go generics are too confusing and complicated then that developer should probably find another job, as generics are a basic concept in programming. The Go designers are pragmatic people, and they've decided that relatively simple generics will make things easier in mainstream commercial codebases.
But some people have a tendency to play code golf with their codebases.
I have, for example, encountered a "generic data structure" that looked like a normal linked list on the surface. BUT, it actually sorted the largest three items in the first 3 cells and the average in the 4th.
That was multiple days of work wasted because someone decided to be cute with their data structures. And that wasn't even the only one of such "generic" monstrosities in the code.
It's true that applicative code shouldn't need generics in probably more than 90% of the times, however the lack of it affects library authors quite heavily
In Go prior to generics, interface{} is an escape hatch less frequently needed but not necessarily much safer than void*. Post generics, interface{} is suddenly more useful and will be aliased by ‘any’.
The way the std lib heap works in Go, an implementation doesn’t have to mention interface{}. Using the Go std lib solution is about satisfying a few interfaces, defining some methods for sorting and swapping over the element type. The use of interface{} is internal.
Go’s generics solution is going to have type constraints, which I think will be very familiar to some and probably new to others … So, the Go generics PQ should still require some constraints on elements, not ’any’thing will work. I’ve really enjoyed constraints in languages and it’s not quite natural in C++/Java, but Go’s interfaces already do some ‘constraint’ work conceptually and can be used as constraints in Go’s generics syntax. I’m interested to see how this plays out.
You can cast void* to anything you want. With interface{} you get a type check, either through an assertion or a panic. That is a big difference in safety.
I was thinking more about silence where someone expected a greater degree of compile-time type safety than they really had, or relatedly e.g. the subtleties in JSON encoding / decoding where there is silent data corruption that could fall through the cracks - mostly I feel like I avoid these things by not using interface{}; I certainly did not grasp that without some experience with the language.