Go is one of the simplest languages in existence. It's on the other side of the charts.
By what metric?
I can think of a lot of simpler languages. Lua, C, Forth, all the theoretical dead-simple combinator languages you don't want to use (Lambda Calculus, SKI calculus, etc.), etc...
Are all simple, yes. That C is on your list is kind'a the point - Go is explicitly a spiritual derivative of C.
But go down on the TIOBE index[1] and tell me what fraction of languages there are as simple as Go. It's not a large fraction.
[1]: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index....
No, not even close.
I think you might want to spend a bit more time with Rust before considering it just another C++.
Consider inheritance vs. traits. Rust isn't able to stick with just traits because there are some things, though few, that are slightly faster with inheritance. So Rust is going to get some form of inheritance (in whatever form it might take). For every bit of functionality in C++, there is or will be some alternative in Rust, and that's by design.
The same is not at all true for Go.
Are you saying that is simple because:
1) Is so anemic and have a relatively small specification?
2) Let you solve problems in the most simple ways?
I could (maybe) kinda agree if you refer to 1...kinda.