I might have been opposed to your suggestion, except recently one of the devs explained that they've been discussing it internally [1]. He also said they're not really willing to open the discussion up to the public, for practical reasons. So we're basically getting all we can ask for at this point.
Let me guess, you're worried that the Objective C team will get swamped with requests for generics by developers who behave as if it is impossible to develop software without the feature.
Never happen. The HN community is far too mature for that.
The lack of generics in Objective-C is one of my biggest complains with the language. A huge portion of the runtime errors I run into are due to containers not containing the type of object I expected them to.
Generic levity is currently available in Go right now.
No need to! ObjC developers have soldiered on for years and years without such fanciness.
I think the difference is that Objective-C is dynamically typed from the start, while Go tries to be statically typed first, with the added ability to work with those types dynamically. The latter leads to a lot of additional and arguably ugly code that I expect scares a lot of people off.
This. ObjC devs have always been self-selected to not care about static typing, especially in collections.