Downvoters care to comment what's wrong with the information?
The sentiment also is the impression I got so far from the Golang community. Their own flavor for many things, but not much new. I think that is sort of the philosophy behind Golang, isn't it? They wanted a simple language, that many people could easily switch to, without learning new concepts. I mean, for 12 years of its existence Golang didn't even have generics, making it superficially even simpler. That is what you get with Golang. Not too surprising really. Some people like it, some don't.
Technically there's nothing wrong with it. That's the problem. These "gotcha" takes that some random language from 20 years ago already had feature x so talking about it now makes no sense are as common as they're misguided.
A simple example is Go's autoformatter `goftmt`. In my opinion an earth-shattering invention. But to see that you need to go a bit beyond the basic, binary thinking that only true novelty has any value.
There's a fundamental difference between a language like Python that has 2-3 competing autoformatters used by <5% of Python programmers [1] and Go's single autoformatter used by >95% of Go programmers.
Technically Python and Go are equivalent here, but in reality the gap between them is enormous. That's why pointing out that feature x has existed since the 70's or that every other language has x too isn't a useful insight.
[1]: I'm of course talking about the state of Python and Go around the time Go was released.
The sentiment also is the impression I got so far from the Golang community. Their own flavor for many things, but not much new. I think that is sort of the philosophy behind Golang, isn't it? They wanted a simple language, that many people could easily switch to, without learning new concepts. I mean, for 12 years of its existence Golang didn't even have generics, making it superficially even simpler. That is what you get with Golang. Not too surprising really. Some people like it, some don't.