My problem is with the "just adds"... Scala made this mistake, and ended with many different ways to do the same task. It is a powerful language, but I believe languages must have only one (or two) concise way to to things.
This might be a casual dismissal of what is in fact a nuanced aspect of programming languages.
Multiple ways of doing the same thing can make the language less accessible because it becomes confusing to reason about what the "right" way is.
That said, this particular addition merely reduces repetitive toil, and it follows similar existing Java conventions, for example see the Java-7 equivalent of Python "with-statements".
Bjarne Stroustrup once noted in Design & Evolution of C++ that people want different things from the seemingly simple artifacts we call "Programming Languages". Some people want an algorithmic language to express procedures cleanly in, others want a design language to express large scale systems in. Some want a terse and uniform "executable mathematics" notation, others want a down-to-earth worse-is-better lets-make-some-goddamn-apps-and-put-some-fucking-bread-on-the-table working class language. Some want a language with an emphasis on the lone author, others an emphasis on the corporate business team. A language as a tool that you wield skillfully for the single purpose it was built for, a language as a toolbox full of gadgets, a language as a material to build the previous two from, a language as a community hub to organize around, etc etc etc. I have seen people argue that "Language" the wrong metaphor to understand computer notations entirely.
This is why you can't say anything general about programming languages.
You're welcome to switch your language of choice to go if that's really your bag.
Java has none.