Very much this. Go was designed as a whole forest; focusing in on each feature in isolation is, near-literally, missing the forest for the trees.
For example, you get a nice operator for appending to a string, but not a slice. A zero-valued slice is empty, a zero-valued map is nil.
This isn't to say that Go is bad, it's just that its tradeoffs aren't in service of any big unifying vision. When range can only iterate over a slice, map, string, or channel, there's no forest. It's just four trees.
To "miss the known universe" was the explicit purpose of the designers. It was supposed to be simple (whether their definition is good or not is debatable). The number of users is irrelevant.