> And Go people's common refusal to look much further, and especially not into academia..
I don't think that's a fair statement, given Phil Wadler's formal work on generics in Go - "Featherweight Go" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710) - which is acknowledged here: https://blog.golang.org/generics-next-step
Ah, the irony,
-- Proc. ACM Program. Lang., Vol. 1, No. OOPSLA
It appears Go needs PhDs after all.
The Featherweight Go paper also just recently came out, which is an important step:
If this follows the monomorphic approach described in Featherweight Go , they will at least avoid problems caused by type erasure and avoid too much runtime overhead.