Go's style is not the same thing as Erlang's style. And the answer is yes, if you're talking about Go's style. Your line about C++ not having enough features is cute-sounding but actually it's anti-intellectualism under the religion of minimalism.
"Finally, although the subject is not a pleasant one, I must mention PL/1, a programming language for which the defining documentation is of a frightening size and complexity. Using PL/1 must be like flying a plane with 7000 buttons, switches and handles to manipulate in the cockpit. I absolutely fail to see how we can keep our growing programs firmly within our intellectual grip when by its sheer baroqueness the programming language —our basic tool, mind you!— already escapes our intellectual control. And if I have to describe the influence PL/1 can have on its users, the closest metaphor that comes to my mind is that of a drug. I remember from a symposium on higher level programming language a lecture given in defense of PL/1 by a man who described himself as one of its devoted users. But within a one-hour lecture in praise of PL/1. he managed to ask for the addition of about fifty new “features”, little supposing that the main source of his problems could very well be that it contained already far too many “features”. The speaker displayed all the depressing symptoms of addiction, reduced as he was to the state of mental stagnation in which he could only ask for more, more, more... When FORTRAN has been called an infantile disorder, full PL/1, with its growth characteristics of a dangerous tumor, could turn out to be a fatal disease."
First of all, it's not my line, it's Rob Pike's line. Second, upon seeing how the C++ people intend to fix deficiencies of C++ by throwing even more features at it, it's very difficult to see it in any other way. Third, the only "anti-intellectualism" I see here is named C++: It's actually symptomatic of certain organizations that instead of trying to see the big picture and really fix things in a systematic way, they "anti-intellectually" hack and tweak and tinker and micro-optimize. For example, IBM has been doing that in the 1960s with their HW architectures before they got their shit mostly together, which is why the ACS project failed, only for it to be rediscovered forty years later, with modern CPUs finally (!) utilizing these ancient but very well working techniques, such as superscalar out-of-order design that will celebrate its fiftieth birthday in a few years. Now, the same breed of people who ditched ACS in the 1960s are apparently in charge of design of mainstream languages. I wonder if we'll survive the next decades in good mental health before enough people realize the same thing again, ditch that crap and start all over again.