The software world is driven by hype, not by objective quality. See Go, Git (vs Mercurial), every project put out then subsequently abandoned by $PUPPYKILLER_CO after being depended on.
Git's implementation is stronger and more useful for larger projects than Mercurial's, even if the user interface is less logical.
It's not that the software world is driven by hype but that the software world is driven by what the giants do. Often, what Google does isn't right for a small project.
I get it. Most software is boring, doesn't break new ground, and Go is well suited for those kinds of projects.
But I'm becoming an old, cranky developer who wants to work on problems where Go's mediocrity is more hindrance than advantage.
Removing complexity from the language just moves it onto the developer and end-user code, it doesn't eliminate it. Go's mediocrity is a ticking timebomb.
Guess how Go will look like at 25?
Keyword being "supposedly", because in practice, it's quite terrible compared to established solutions like Java and C#.