Yeah, I generally feel the same way. For fairly simple use, scope is more consistent (all scopes / closures are identical), but func is a bit more flexible if you're willing to pay with simple boilerplate.

I mean, you can convert them into each other. Scoped can do something like this (go+python blended code 'cuz lazy):

    func f(){
      deferred := []
      defer func() { for d in deferred.reverse(): d() }() // plus error handling
      if x.something() {
        deferred.push(func(){ cleanup() });
      }
      // same as func scope
    }

but that's a bit more ridiculous / error-prone (though a helper func is obviously possible) than the equivalent IIFE for func -> scope. More explicit, I suppose, but bleh.

> If it was scope based there's nothing you could do to get func_defer behavior.

That's clearly false. You could set up a list to hold objects to be disposed (or, more generally, closures to execute) and defer a simple procedure that disposes of all objects in the list. This is in fact what the implementation of defer must do internally.