miniblog.

I've heard of 'blub languages', where you don't realise that other languages have better abstractions until you've experienced them. I think the same thing happens with individual features. I've seen several C++ folks miss variadic generics in Rust, but I've not written enough C++ to feel it.

Cases where it makes more sense to use concrete types rather than generics, even if you can be generic:

I've really come to appreciate OCaml's notion of generics. It doesn't have subtyping, so e.g. you have an `int list` or an arbitrary `'a list`, but nothing inbetween. As soon as you add constraints like Java's `List<? as Foo>` it become incredibly hard to produce good errors.