I think that what you’re talking about might even be the killer feature that is often ignored: the forced simplicity. It’s a simple enough language that you can drop into a codebase and read without having to look up much syntax, assuming you have some familiarity with c-family languages. Yes, there are some weird bits that you have to learn, but the learning curve is very short compared to a lot of other languages.

Indeed, Go is reduced to the bare essentials!

That's why it has primitive types representing complex numbers, which maybe 1 in 10,000 projects will use.

It doesn't have enums though, because who needs those?

No need to be so salty. No-one is claiming that Go is an ultraminimalist language, just that it's relatively simple compared to most of the alternatives.

> the forced simplicity

I appreciate this about Go. I'm not a programming language wonk, and Go's forced simplicity makes it easier to read other people's code.

Ad absurdum that would mean that programming in assembly is the most readable.

Abstraction is the only reason we can write any complex program.

The bigger the toolbox is, the more becoming an expert pays off. I would much rather fully learn a language I’m using as a working professional, than have to review many home-grown solutions to a common problem the language ignored.