Functional programming is not "newer", it is as old as Lisp, which dates back to the 60s. The people who made Go simply decided that the language did not need those features.
Java: Arrays.stream(nums).map(n -> n * n).toArray();
Kotlin: nums.map { it * it }
Python: list(map(lambda x: x*2, nums))
C#: nums.Select(n => n * n).ToArray();
Ruby: nums.map { |n| n*2 }
Rust: nums.iter().map(|&n| n * n).collect();
Perl: map { $_ * $_ } @nums;Personally, when I'm solving a problem, I like to reach for the pre-established universally understood pattern that's built into my language. Rather than using a language that doesn't have any of those things and requires me to create my own, worse, implementation that's unique to my program (or use a random 3rd-party module of dubious quality for something basic).
> requires me to create my own
Yes, how many string contains methods are there out there, as the result of everyone having to write their own.
I feel like we've jumped out of the frying pan of the 90s' OOP craze, directly into the fire of doing the same cargo cult behavior with functional programming. Always avoid loops, always use higher-order functions. It just makes sense. If you are not provided with the shotgun spread of higher-order functions out of the box, be frustrated.
I vaguely recall reactions to Haskell in the late 90s where vitriol was spewed over the lack of inheritance and classes.