It doesn't feel like that's a strategy that worked especially well for Scala or C++. Go isn't the only language that removes powerful tools: all the strict functional languages do too!

The issues that Scala and C++ have are far beyond just "having generics". Classical (ML-style) generics are an incredibly simple feature, much more so than, say, built-in channels.

I agree and I like generics, but I think it's hard to argue that generics have never made a complicated project more complicated.

I'd say typeclasses, templates, and variance have, sure. Those are separate features from generics in my mind. (But you could reasonably lump them all together under the heading of "generics" and I won't argue too much.) :)

It's worked exceedingly well for Scala from where I'm standing. There is no other language I'd rather be using.

If you read my comment carefully, you'll see that I was not in fact saying that people were wrong to like Scala. I like C, but I don't get irritated when people point out its innumerable flaws.

If you read my comment carefully, you'll see that I was not in fact saying that you were saying that people were wrong to like Scala. I think it's the best language available today and I think that's as a direct result of it being willing to put powerful tools in the hands of its users; therefore "It doesn't feel like that's a strategy that worked especially well for Scala" is, in my view, simply wrong.

I don't think I'm the first person to suggest that Scala introduced a fair bit of complexity with all the features it embraced, but, fair enough.