Another way of seeing it is that "40% of the code became imaginary", in the sense that you have to figure out what the macro is expanding to.
I'm not against generics. I was just wondering myself in a boring afternoon :)
I'm not against generics. I was just wondering myself in a boring afternoon :)
The compiler does lots of internal 'expansion' steps in all kinds of different internal formats to spit out machine code at the end. We typically wonder what all those intermediate steps are.
Why should we suddenly care, just because one of those internal formats can be interpreted as being compatible with an earlier version of the Go language? (I don't say, that the internal format _is_ the Go language, because I doubt their internal representation looks like the bytes you have in your .go file.)
Functions that operate on collections (or set-like structures) are what generics are most commonly used for, so there shouldn't be much surprise.