Yes, the hilarious arrogance of… taking in account useful things that work?

> there are tools to do this, they’re not widely used because it doesn’t fit Go well. You’re trying too hard to write Go in the style of another language.

Literally the exact same statement could be made about generics.

> If you want an exhaustive type switch that badly, it’s usually a sign that your interface definition is wrong.

Wonderfully missing the point again.

> You’re gonna write some tests, make new types to satisfy interfaces for testing, and then wind up with branches for your test paths in your live code, but go for it, I guess.

Oh boy, ain’t that one for Principal.

> You know everything!

You’re the person declaring sum types useless in the face of decades of evidence and completely incapable of handling the idea of disagreement.

> I am but a simple blubbite, too dim, too dim to get it.

I see you don’t understand the blub paradox either.