More as usual, gophers rediscover old ideas and pass them off as innovations. Pytest added pytest.mark.parametrize back in 2011, junit 4 had first-class parametrized test support (don’t know if it was in 4.0 released circa 2006, but it was definitely in there no later than 2009), and data-driven testing was a thing in the late 90s.
I see no place in the linked article where this is passed off as an innovation. I see no claim that it is impossible in any other language or that Go is uniquely good at table based testing. All there is is a claim that in the Go community specifically this practice has been getting more popular, and this is a relatively old article now, dating back to the community being pretty young, so it's a sensible claim at the time.
I am also not aware of anywhere where the Go designers try to pass anything off as an "innovation". To my eyes they've always been very up front that they're not looking to innovate and that Go was always about recombining established ideas.
There is only one thing I am aware of that I have seen from the Go designers where they claimed actual innovation, and it was down in some grotty details about how garbage collection works in Go, and even that was more from the perspective of answering the FAQ "Why don't you just do exactly what Java does?" and giving a detailed answer about relevant differences in the runtime than any sort of "look what we've discovered".
If you are reading claims of "innovation" where none exist, I guess this makes sense of your hostility, but are you sure people are actually claiming what you think they're claiming?
Downvoters care to comment what's wrong with the information?
The sentiment also is the impression I got so far from the Golang community. Their own flavor for many things, but not much new. I think that is sort of the philosophy behind Golang, isn't it? They wanted a simple language, that many people could easily switch to, without learning new concepts. I mean, for 12 years of its existence Golang didn't even have generics, making it superficially even simpler. That is what you get with Golang. Not too surprising really. Some people like it, some don't.
Technically there's nothing wrong with it. That's the problem. These "gotcha" takes that some random language from 20 years ago already had feature x so talking about it now makes no sense are as common as they're misguided.
A simple example is Go's autoformatter `goftmt`. In my opinion an earth-shattering invention. But to see that you need to go a bit beyond the basic, binary thinking that only true novelty has any value.
There's a fundamental difference between a language like Python that has 2-3 competing autoformatters used by <5% of Python programmers [1] and Go's single autoformatter used by >95% of Go programmers.
Technically Python and Go are equivalent here, but in reality the gap between them is enormous. That's why pointing out that feature x has existed since the 70's or that every other language has x too isn't a useful insight.
[1]: I'm of course talking about the state of Python and Go around the time Go was released.
More as usual, gophers rediscover old ideas and pass them off as innovations. Pytest added pytest.mark.parametrize back in 2011, junit 4 had first-class parametrized test support (don’t know if it was in 4.0 released circa 2006, but it was definitely in there no later than 2009), and data-driven testing was a thing in the late 90s.