Go code is all about being able to see the trees, forget about the forest. Go programs are rarely easy to read or understand unless they are written by exceptionally talented developers in my experience.
In my experience this is true with any language. I think this is a function of talent and program complexity (the size of the forest), not the language.
I read code for a living and Go was the easiest language to read imo.
I arrived late in a team that worked on a very large Go codebase. To this date, it was the easiest codebase to grok by far.
Agreed. Because golang is "simple", the actual code base becomes a mess, littered with 10 line functions that are basically map/filter/etc. calls, which can be written on a single line in a proper modern language. The majority of golang code bases I've seen are much more difficult to follow compared to if they had been written in something like Java or C#.
Anti-cleverness (in the 'simplicity' sense) is a feature of your coding style, not your language. And I wouldn't even describe Go as being that simple or anti-clever - this proposed feature being a case in point, with its own weirdness tacked on to it that's quite simply unknown in other, even "clever" languages.