The lack of generics makes Go unsuitable to write typesafe, reusable data structures for use in many popular algorithms. That's a fact.

Yes you can hamfist your way around interfaces and empty interfaces, but it's a complete and utter chore and requires a lot of code duplication for each individual type you want.

I like Go in the sense that you can write things quickly and cleanly, but for the use case above, it's not appropriate.

  The lack of generics makes Go unsuitable to write typesafe, 
  reusable data structures for use in many popular 
  algorithms. That's a fact.

That is not a factual statement. It is subjective and it is disputable.

Yes well, I was writing a comment that was already too long. Lots of comments could be better supported. I suppose I could develop this into an original piece with lots of code examples. I guess if I don't do that, I can't write any comments?

You should have picked one point you wished to make and argued it. For instance "Scala can do the same thing (and more elegantly)" could have been demonstrated with a couple of examples. I have not used Scala, but I would be interested to see examples of language-level concurrency other than Go.

You are probably right, that would have been more useful.