Automatic generics is how c++ templates behave. It is universally agreed upon to be absolutely horrible, now being remedied with what they call Concepts to constrain the generic signatures at least a little.
The issue is that when you have errors, it is impossible to determine if the error is at the caller, the callee or at the type signature. Essentially you have an equation of 3 dimensions with 3 unknowns. Same issue propagates into code navigation and refactoring.
It’s like regressing into a dynamically typed language except the errors are given during compile time. For small simple functions like the addOne example, it’s great to reduce boilerplate typing, but once you start relying on it for more complex types it can easily go out of hand.
I don't think the problem you describe would happen in the version seen in Ezno, since the arguments and return can still get explicit type declarations and the "generic" version is just a more-specific refinement of that
The issue is that when you have errors, it is impossible to determine if the error is at the caller, the callee or at the type signature. Essentially you have an equation of 3 dimensions with 3 unknowns. Same issue propagates into code navigation and refactoring.
It’s like regressing into a dynamically typed language except the errors are given during compile time. For small simple functions like the addOne example, it’s great to reduce boilerplate typing, but once you start relying on it for more complex types it can easily go out of hand.