I hope it's not literally to prevent people reinventing these simple data structures.
The ecosystem exerts a lot of pressure on developers to not reinvent fundamental things, in Haskell I practically never reach for a StrictTuple or StrictEither even when I'd like strictness specifically because they are clunkier and less well integrated with other libraries.
Scala is the only language that comes to mind with this issue (scalaz vs Cats) and my impression is that even they have mostly converged.
I would say Go has much stronger idioms than either of these languages, and wouldn't need to be afraid of people inventing their own fundamental types provided they're included in the standard library.
> Scala is the only language that comes to mind with [the issue of needlessly reinvented fundamentals]
C/C++ is another example. There are a plethora of string types mostly tied to which base set of libraries you're using. If you're using the C++ stdlib, you have std::string. But if you're using Qt, you're using QByteArray and QString instead. And probably similar for GLib/GTK.
(Does std::string even have any encoding support yet? When I last used it, it was just a string of bytes without any encoding awareness.)
The ecosystem exerts a lot of pressure on developers to not reinvent fundamental things, in Haskell I practically never reach for a StrictTuple or StrictEither even when I'd like strictness specifically because they are clunkier and less well integrated with other libraries.
Scala is the only language that comes to mind with this issue (scalaz vs Cats) and my impression is that even they have mostly converged.
I would say Go has much stronger idioms than either of these languages, and wouldn't need to be afraid of people inventing their own fundamental types provided they're included in the standard library.