I think the Java stream API is amazing, and I do like that.

Not having the equivalent of hibernate level ORMs is not a disadvantage for me personally, just because I don't like ORMs - Asking chatgpt to spit out some SQL and mapping code for me and being able to tweak the actual SQL over time is preferable (but again that is just my preference).

I don't really agree with the idea that Go has an underdeveloped type system, I think its contraints lend itself to productivity in other ways. Of the various languages I've worked with, Go programs I expand have the highest chance of working the first time I run them, because the compiler and language server A) give meaningful indications of mismatched usages and B) older Go projects have a very good chance of just working, without me having to worry about getting them going with my IDE again. B is a product of the fact that they have been very conservative with the language.

Is it possible that some of the mismatch in how people view Go's type system is due to experiences differing from writing applications vs writing libraries? I personally find some of the repetition in Go code to be tolerable when writing web applications and CLI tools, but a real issue for the composability of libraries with different purposes. Going back to the database toolkit example, the query builder can easily return a result type, but what if I also want to handle validation of input before the query and then later return a HTTP response? Well to chain a result type end-to-end in Go requires it to have knowledge of all the different types/interfaces that it could map to, which I believe is way too broad of a responsibility for one type, even though all of those features feel as though they could very naturally chain together and reduce down to a single error. These kinds of type limitations effectively force Go libraries to live on their own islands where they don't compose with one another.