I'm a little confused by the author's belief Go needs to be more pragmatic. All the points made in the "I Love Go" section (gofmt, the toolchain, interfaces) display strong qualities of pragmatism to me. The article literally describe interfaces as 'no-nonsense and pragmatic'. And, even if they do not personally like the opinionated nature, it is a prime example of solving questions in a practical way.

No language can be everything to everyone. One thing that encourages me to keep writing Go is the team has done a very good job at communicating their intentions for the language.

It's very clear to me when to write Go and when not to. That's a sign of strength to me, as it shows the language has the confidence to tell you "perhaps I'm not the best choice for this particular problem".