That is a matter of taste. If you value detail syntax over real features, it might seem that way. But that is not an universal truth.
Detailed syntax is not an antithesis to real features.
Missing 'detailed features' adds to little annoyances over time.
Only in the eyes of people that want to see any missing shorthand from any other language as such. As said they are more about giving a false sense of familiarity than about productivity.
If there's room/logic to implement them, then why not?
As said (with example) there is often crosstalk (unintended consequences) between features in a large, organically grown languages as Object Pascal is. As an additional bump, FPC is also a multi dialect compiler, which adds yet another dimension of possible complications.
Quite often the consequences are not visible up front. But once it is in, you are stuck with it due to the backwards compatibility policies. Also the compromises are often sometimes liked by none because the syntax of the originating language is too ambiguous and has to be changed, or the application is limited.
Besides feature clashes there is also error generation to contend with. FPC prides itself on high quality error messages, and not just vague endless rows of "syntax error, unexpected token <x>". This is also quite often overlooked by the initial design of such quick and dirty language extensions.
Moreover, the person initiating the support often moves on leaving the core developers to pick up the pieces.
If you want language experimentation, by all means do it in a new dialect as Sharpbasic, plan it up front, and you can still remove failed experiments in the early versions.
Taking grouped initialization as example,
I remember having to set several iterators/counters to zero statement by statement after declaration, which is probably the first reason for the grouped initialization feature request.
I don't believe that any occasional verbosity automatically warrants a language expansion. Moreover because FPC is not a language experimentation project in the first place.
Admittedly, it doesn't carry as much weight as 'real features', but that's no reason to ignore those 'detailed features'. Polishing a compiler just adds that little extra that allows for an ever better programming experience.
Mostly I get the impression that the only ones that care are the handful pressing for extensions, and more from an angle of language design rather than pure users.
Moreover I'm even more wary if those same suggesters also dodge bearing real responsibility as core developers, but are only gaslighting the forums.
Earlier in this thread you also opted for leaving out explicit fall through, which I would say is more than a detailed feature.
IIRC I opted for using gotos and then having the optimizer eliminate that, for the rare cases that fall through is necessary. Since that is a solution without any syntax extensions, it is quite in line with my opinion stated above.