As any Go programmer will tell you, Go is a very readable language. It's one of the design goals. It is _not_ a design goal to impress people making superficial judgements.
Also, LOL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5327478
Yes I did just post that. Should I wait until there's an article on coding aesthetics first? I'm a seasoned programmer with experience in many languages. Reading a new language should make me want to use it because it's an improvement in many ways, particularly around expressivity and clarity. IMHO Go isn't as good as it could be. I wasn't saying Go as a whole is bad or not worthwhile.
Like I said, Go isn't designed to impress superficially. It's a pragmatic language for getting work done.
If a programming experience was designed to impress superficially, then it wouldn't live in a pure text editor at all. I'm commenting on aesthetics as it also relates to usability (readability). I don't get this mindset that things that functionally work well have to be ugly. It's a very unix/engineering mentality that just isn't true. You CAN have both.
In Go's case, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, and went through a couple of tutorials, but while there were some nice parts of it that just reinforced my initial impression.