I have on a number of occasions wished I could define an interface that could be fulfilled by a field without me having to write a method, but it's not a use case that comes up enough to bend a type system design around. (And there are enough other workarounds, like embedding a custom type and such that it's fine.) I think a lot of people underestimate just how large every last detail of every design decision looms at this level of a language. Too many languages doing something slightly convenient for a relatively small set of flashy use cases without fully accounting for or realizing the costs it imposes.

(This is a pretty hot take but IMHO Python is almost imploding itself constantly adding features that match that description.)

That's interesting because I see them as the exact opposite. You're not saving or gaining anything of significance, and it's just increasing confusion.

Penny wise, pound foolish, if you will.

Nor am I sure exactly what "confusion" is being increased.

Why would go not have interfaces? Where did you make that up from?

Go would have nominative interfaces Like most other languages.