[cryptos]

Go is so minimalistic that it forces developers to reinvent the same things again and again. Just think about how common certain collection operations are and how easy they are in some languages (e.g. Java, Kotlin, C#, Rust), but in Go you'd write list and for loops like in the last century. This wastes developer time, makes the code harder to understand and adds chances for bugs.

So, this cite applies to Go: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

[nickd2001]

As someone dabbling in Go, still a n00b really, but experienced in many other languages, I find this too, why's there stuff that's just standard in e:g Python, yet missing in Go? Apparently a thought-out, deliberate decision by the language designers. But then, since many people feel this way about Go, I'm mystified that 3rd-party libraries haven't evolved to cover "missing features" of Go. One would think, someone will scratch an itch, release it, then everyone uses that. Seems to have happened in other languages. Weirdly, there are indeed 3rd-party libs for Go that do more sophisticated things, web frameworks etc. Its almost as though 3rd-party devs don't dare touch the lower level stuff cos that's "against the spirit" of Go, but do make reusable libs for higher level things. Well, this comment may reflect my naiveté / ignorance of the language. Maybe someone else will clarify this? ;)

[DylanSp]

There are some libraries that add the kind of utility functions you're talking about; I'm fond of samber/lo [1] myself. I don't know how widely used they are, though.

[1] https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/samber/lo