I've generally assumed that the goal of the GoF (design patterns) was the same: with a canonical and prescribed set of ways of doing certain things you're less likely to get into trouble and and your code more likely to be understood by another reader.
While I believe the issue of cognitive overhead due to increased optionality (i.e. power in this case) the converse is also true: the additional expressive power of a language takes the place of an IDE and permits more compact code which can be easier to understand than the more diffuse and boilerplate-laden code of a less expressive language, where the scaffolding can obscure the place where the work is actually done.
I've generally assumed that the goal of the GoF (design patterns) was the same: with a canonical and prescribed set of ways of doing certain things you're less likely to get into trouble and and your code more likely to be understood by another reader.
While I believe the issue of cognitive overhead due to increased optionality (i.e. power in this case) the converse is also true: the additional expressive power of a language takes the place of an IDE and permits more compact code which can be easier to understand than the more diffuse and boilerplate-laden code of a less expressive language, where the scaffolding can obscure the place where the work is actually done.