I feel like this is something that people who use a certain language repeat to themselves until they believe it.

Go is big enough that this certainly doesn't hold for tens of thousands of developers.

In my experience Go's relatively constrained language and standard library coupled with gofmt mean Go code written by entirely different people tends to read fairly consistently.

Style wise for sure. Structure? Choices of libraries etc? Definitely not. Not enough consensus for even the simple "I want make MVC style webapp".

When worked on Go projects, I found that I was far more likely to read library code to see how to use it than other languages I used. Cannot be too "fancy" is definitely a strength of Go as a programming language.

I don’t dislike Go and have worked with it professionally on and off over the years. It occupies a weird liminal space between low level languages like C and medium level languages like Java. It was built to solve a set of in house problems that Google faced and it does so well. On the other hand if you end up needing to do lower level work the lack of power renders Go unsuitable. And if you need to do higher level work the lack of expressiveness is almost as frustrating.

> Go doesn’t attract mediocrity it attracts pragmatism.

It attracts "pragmatism" and "simplicity" in my experience, but in the prescence of cheap optimal solutions the worse alternative is chosen to preserve that pragmatic image.