This is called zero derivation aka conversion, and happens in various non-English languages too. The trick is that, in English, singular nouns and infinitive verbs have no special ending or marking to show what they are: if I say "water" without context, there's no way to know if that's a noun or a verb.
In Latin, on the other hand, infinitive verbs and singular nouns tend to be easily distinguishable. It's still possible to convert one into the other, like don-um "gift (n)" → don-āre "gift (v)", cur-a "care (n)" → cur-āre "care (v)", laud-s (*) "praise (n)" → laud-āre "praise (v)". But this isn't traditionally called zero derivation, because there's still a change in form, even if the stem itself doesn't change at all.
Most languages with inflectional morphology are more on the Latin side than the English side. In Esperanto, for example, a constructed language with very high levels of regularity, there's a rule that all nouns and verbs can be converted into each other—but singular nouns always end in -o and infinitive verbs in -i, so it's still not a zero derivation. (**) Most Indo-Aryan languages come down on this side too. But languages with less inflection, like Chinese, tend to act like English, using words as nouns or verbs as the situation demands, without any overt marking.
(*) The surface form is laus, but forms like the plural laud-ēs shows that there's an underlying or historical
/d/ in the stem.
(**) The difference between zero and non-zero derivation is mostly relevant when it makes it hard to tell algorithmically what part of speech a word is. Fundamentally, it's the same basic process either way, and all known languages have ways to do it.