You shrug off the established players but all else is very much not equal. Until Go has its own mature Django or WordPress projects, you're spending a lot more time reimplementing the wheel.
A framework gets you going real quick, but at some point, probably 3-6 months in, you'll need to do something that the framework doesn't like. At that point the framework suddenly becomes a hindrance rather than a help. You spend more and more time fighting the framework and writing more and more code that lives outside the framework. After a few years you've wasted way more time than you ever gained from using the framework.
Libraries are built to provide capabilities to your code. Until you've experienced a good standard library (like Golang's) then this makes no sense. It's common for newbies to Golang (like I did) to try and create supersets of the libraries and create their own framework. But every new project comes back to the simplicity and ease of using the standard library.
I like the OP's approach of having repos full of useful middleware and handlers. This makes much, much more sense for Golang development than a Django clone.
Try it, you'll like it.
The fact Django is batteries-included, and everything is well documented in a single place, developers aren't wasting time working out what they can or should use for URL routing or handling database connections.
So no, I stick by my comment. A good framework saves time by being easier to learn, creating a more homogeneous product that is easier for other <framework>-developers to pick up, not forcing developers to form opinions about architecture they just need to work.
It's great not to have to worry about frameworks, that often last just for a few years, than you have to rewrite or migrate to a newer partly incompatible version.
Yes, some platforms (e.g., WordPress) give you certain functionality off the shelf, but if your application isn't a CMS or blog, then the utility of that functionality is low. When building a custom REST or REST-like server for an application, a CMS platform isn't necessarily a reasonable starting point.
As with anything in technology, many variables need to be evaluated to make a decision. My point here is that performance is a consideration—more significant and valuable than many people understand—and it at least somewhat objective. Developer productivity is more difficult to objectively measure and varies by team on matters such as previous experience.
However, the performance gap between Go and Rust is much smaller than the gap between Go and a dynamically-typed language, even one JIT'ed to the n'th degree, and the gap between Go and Java generally lost in the noise [1]. Between Go, Java, and Rust, you've probably got a good case that you'll get to more-or-less production-ready code fastest in Go. (And yes, "more-or-less" is a gap big enough to drive a truck through too. I preemptively pretty much agree with everything anybody might care to write about that issue in reply. :) )
[1]: I suppose I should point out that a perf gap of 2 or 3 is "generally lost in the noise". In the real world what tends to control which such language has the better implementation of something for most tasks is who has taken more time to write an optimized version. It's when you start getting up to the 10x-25x range that the gap between Go and a dynamic language can be that it's not really "lost in the noise" anymore; in that case, the faster language can end up simply faster than the slow language even if the slow language is given a lot of extra love (assuming no "change to a different language" shenanigans).
Making a platform selection that is informed, in part, on the language/platform's performance is a reasonable thing to do. As long as you can be equally productive (or even if you are a little less productive) with a high-performance platform, you will likely endure less pain during the initial several months once your system goes live and considerably less pain over the long haul.
Plus, it's really great to have a wicked-fast web app with very little performance-tuning effort.
Put another way, a high-performance platform provides a very high ceiling, allowing your application to be more brute-force with its implementation. You don't have to be sub-consciously worrying about performance gotchas while implementing your code because a high-performance platform gives you freedom to be inefficient within your application domain.
Not only that, a high-performance platform postpones your first scale event, and in some cases indefinitely defers it. I've found that applications on high-performance platforms tend to be easier to deal with on a day-to-day basis because they do not collect the various deployment performance-oriented cruft that you typically see with low-performance systems. High-performance platforms have simpler system architecture (fewer external processes, less monitoring overhead, etc.)
A bonus is that the user experience will be just that much better thanks to low-latency responses.
[1] https://www.techempower.com/blog/2016/02/10/think-about-perf...