Proper generics would allow you to parameterize with all types including primitive ones, not just Objects. Check out java.util.Arrays class as an example of why Java's generics are not proper: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/Arrays.h...
You've got a kind of made up definition of 'proper'. Java has generics, they don't have the best implementation of it I've seen, but I wouldn't call it 'improper'. It's just not a word that has any specific meaning in this context.
I seem to remember an article being written a while ago that found Java's type system, with the addition of generics, was unsound. Maybe that's what you're trying to say.
Java generics is a syntax sugar. They don't add anything substantial. You can use Object (or another bound type) everywhere you're using generic type. You only need to add few explicit casts, which are added by compiler anyway.
You can do exactly the same thing in Golang. Just use interface{} everywhere and add few casts where needed. That is Java generics.
That's not true, Java generics are not just syntactic sugar.
> They don't add anything substantial.
They add parametric polymorphism and type safety.
> You can use Object (or another bound type) everywhere you're using generic type.
Only if you go out of your way to do so, and ignore warnings. This has less to do with how generics work in Java and more to do with the fact that Object can be explicitly cast to another type and vice versa.
> You can do exactly the same thing in Golang. Just use interface{} everywhere and add few casts where needed.
