turtle-geometry VS peds

> Really, anything from the book Turtle Geometry would have a challenging time in a lot of functional languages.

https://github.com/sergv/turtle-geometry

Is an implementation of the book Turtle Geometry in Scheme. A Lisp dialect.

> Which is not that most functional languages are bad. Just they don't usually even try to abstract over the graphical. I hate that folks see how well the abstract over functions and assume that is all programming is.

There is an entire section of SICP dedicated to graphical abstraction using functions and function composition.

Or lets look at persistent data structures, a staple of functional programming:

https://github.com/tobgu/peds

Notice how you'd need to generate the DS for every type you'd like to use it, which is not the case with built in mutable maps and slices.

To make them type-safe, you need to generate them for every type you use. While this is technically possible, it does make the language quite hostile towards functional programming. With generics, this is rectified but the problem with non-composable multi-return-value functions still remains

One of the library types that benefits from having generics is "data structure" libraries. Does anyone know of work going on to make a Go 1.18+ persistent data structure library (something like this or this)?