I think we, as a profession, have a tendency to focus on what's "easy" (syntax and constructs we're already familiar with) to the exclusion of other, potentially more important factors. I am and have been guilty of this myself, so I'm not claiming any sort of sainthood, just making an observation.
Often people pick on the use of single-letter variable names as "unreadable." This is mostly a matter of keeping the code light on the page, as they put it. If you're dealing with a package centered around Foo, especially methods on same, it's customary to just abbreviate it to f. That clashes with a lot of people's instincts even though, once you get used to it, it works well.
"Once you get used to it" is key -- this is true of any language with substantially new or different syntax/semantics from what a programmer is used to. All else being equal, familiarity ought to be orthogonal to merit; the mere presence of a learning curve ought not be a deal-breaker.
Anyway, Go is one of the most readable languages I've ever seen, given that it is not a scripting language. Among other things, type inference and literals make the code very clean, to the point where you can in short order read the standard library code and expect to understand it.