A bunch of these "features" are removing existing arbitrary restrictions in the language. Some of the features are JVM improvements not tied to Java.

It has fairly few features compared to most of its peers and has always been very conservative in adding more.

It has too many of the wrong features and not enough of the right features. This is the problem with bolting stuff onto old languages - a lack of cohesiveness.

At which point does a language have enough features? Does any language have?

It really depends on your preferences and what you're trying to do. I would say most languages do have enough features for most usages, to be honest. In the rare occasion the language does not, why not learn another language that fits your needs better? I know maybe 5 or 6 languages well enough to know their pros and cons and between them, I normally know exactly which language I would use depending on the objective, sometimes it may even be Java, but it could be any of the other 5 as they all have slightly different advantages.

There is always Go for those that don't like features.

Arguably, it doesn't. New features can be necessary to stay competitive, such as the Vector API to utilize vector instructions.

Really enjoyed reading the comments. Seems like few people see programming language features as basis vectors of the solution vector space. The more features you add the more cognitively complicated the search for the solution in this space is. It's not "just +1 feature", it's "+1 dimension" essentially.

Unsurprisingly, you will find people who argue even Lambdas went to far, and others who are willing to endure Lombok, multiple annotation processors, or precompilers to work with more advanced features.

Java is a surprisingly small language

no