None of those languages strike me as being both elegant and state of the art at the same time.
Meanwhile the "weapons for a civilized time" such as Lisp or Haskell haven't really gotten a major hold in either a Fortune 1000 company or the software giants on the West Coast.
It's like there's no correlation between "hacker points" for a programming language and the actual results delivered with that language! I'm being ironic, there isn't any. I'm open to someone proving me wrong though...
Not that this defends the very poor syntactical choices that Lisp and Haskell and their communities have done (minimal grammar is not a good thing! One-symbol names are horrible!), but a lack of popularity is not as damning as it sounds.
Ecosystem is part of technical merit, but I'd agree that in many cases (particularly non-software firms), languages aren't chosen by technical merit (including ecosystem), but for social reasons.
Last I checked, the list of publicly acknowledged production Haskell uses included several significant ones in Fortune 1000 firms, and various Lisps have seen production use at major firms, both inside and outside the software industry.
To pedantically respond to your question, note that what i said was that master programmers "won't be choosing it as their tool of choice", by which i mean that it won't be the language they dream about being able to use on their next project. Of course, if Go is the right tool for the job, a sensible and honest programmer will use it.
That's a fair point.