Some noteworthy distinctions:

Another distinction: GOEXPERIMENT=unified supports defined types that are declared within type-parameterized functions, which implicitly parameterize the defined type.

The implicit type arguments are relevant to type identity, so they need to be included in the link name. But they're also currently included in the reflect name, for the same reason as above: https://go.dev/play/p/ORCQud4MPp6?v=gotip (The mangling used is T[implicits;explicits], where implicits and explicits are comma-separated type argument lists. If either list is empty, then the semicolon is omitted.)

I've thought it might be better/clearer if local types were given reflect names like Function.Type, so the above example would print main.F[int].T[string] instead of main.T[int;string]. (The link name would still need vargen disambiguation, because a function can have multiple identically-named defined types in separate blocks.)

My expectation was always that for a generic type T, instantiated with a type argument A, the reflect.Type.Name method would return T[A] or T[pkg2.A] and the reflect.Type.String method would return pkg.T[pkg2.A]. It clearly should not use the link name for type arguments. And I agree that for a local generic type (if such a thing is ever supported) the reflect name should be F[A1].T[A2].

I think the function of reflect and go is a bit unrelated.

   strType := reflect.TypeOf(string("abc"))
   if strType == string { //do something... } //no way to compare this
   if strType.XxxType() == string { //do something... } // If we could compare this, a lot of functionality would be possible

For example, you can define the type in the key of the map:

   maps:=map[type]somevalue
   //get the value
   v:=maps[sometype]

There is also no need to use too much type conversion in the code

switch any(generic).type {
case xxx:
}

The current reflect doesn't do anything like this:

switch reflect.TypeOf(generic){
case //string or "string" what you can case???? What about if it's the type of a project on github?
}

With the current functionality, you can't do something with reflect that you should be able to do