Counterpoint, regarding “reducing the cost of features”: Go is spreading a simplified understanding of what garbage collection performance means to a generation of programmers by providing almost no configuration over their GC settings. I’ve had people say that Go’s GC is obviously the best, without any point of reference with which to compare it.
What Go has done here is pick a reasonable set of trade-offs to make in their garbage collector, hard-code most of these settings into the runtime system, and package that into the philosophy of “configuration is bad”.
I will say Rust it isn't nearly as easy to enter as Go, that should be somewhat expected by their desired feature set. Likewise, they aren't as concerned with the cost of features as Go is.
I would somewhat agree with the GC stuff, I think having a couple more levers there with sensible defaults is probably ideal.