> Do languages really need new features every N months to stay relevant?

I think a fixed N month release schedule is much healthier than what Java did before, which was wait until everyone was on the bus in order to ship, which resulted in multi-year delays.

Depends. Is stuff like context receivers (https://nomisrev.github.io/context-receivers/) needed ? No, although it's a fun experiment. Are multiple receivers needed (https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-10468/Multiple-recei...) ? Not really, but when you are dealing with the JVM, nested class hell is a very common thing, and cleaning up your code is always pleasant. Implicit namespacing ? (https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-11968/Research-and-p...) Fun thing to get.

The thing is, they're all optional. You're never going to use any of these features if you don't need them. Your code can stay as a nested list of calls. But put them all together, and you can have code that is super explicit about what it needs to do, without having to re-pass things that are already there.

Depends. Are the features making things better, or just more complicated?

Even if it makes things better only for, say, 10% of users, but doesn't make it worse for the other 90%... the users will take that every N months for as long as the language authors can do it.

No, but fortunately Java doesn’t do that. They have long running projects, when one is nearing completion it will be put in preview in the upcoming release. No rush to make it into anything, it’s ready when it’s ready. (Which should be copied by the rest of the industry as well)