I feel the same way, but then again Rust (among others) exists so it's not like those of us who dislike this approach are "stuck" with Go. I think it's actually nice to have the choice, reading the comment in this thread it's pretty clear that there are people who don't feel like we do.
Go clearly values "simple and practical" over "elegant". It seems to be quite successful at that.
I have to refute this 'simple and practical' claim.
Not having generics and neither having very common tools doesn't seem very good. You will have to write a for loop for what is a simple function call in python or javascript or <insert modern language here>. Such detail easily interrupts reading / writing flow.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but I'd nit pick and say that lack of generics and presence of implicit null types make Go not simple and not practical over other options in the same space.
As someone using Java which has null and hardly using any generics even though they are available in Java. I find Java immensely practical with huge number of libraries and other facilities of ecosystem.
Seems you are of the opinion if you do not find something practical no one else can.
And I find go immensely practical and Java immensely impractical. But I see its value. It's almost like we have different languages because people are myriad :)
Problem-space and learning styles play a huge role.
Having seen Java shortcomings up and close I can totally understand that. It is just that some folks think their subjective opinion about programing are some universal objective truths.
Go clearly values "simple and practical" over "elegant". It seems to be quite successful at that.