The software world is driven by hype, not by objective quality. See Go, Git (vs Mercurial), every project put out then subsequently abandoned by $PUPPYKILLER_CO after being depended on.
Go's mediocrity is a feature, since it's supposed to allow larger teams to get more work done. That seems to have worked fairly well in practice. The authors hypothesized that a inexpressive language might actually be superior for the types of things that Google used to do in C++ (in terms of development time including onboarding and defect rate [especially with regards to concurrency]).
Git's implementation is stronger and more useful for larger projects than Mercurial's, even if the user interface is less logical.
It's not that the software world is driven by hype but that the software world is driven by what the giants do. Often, what Google does isn't right for a small project.
Same was told of Java (blue collar language) and here we are 25 later where Go people consider Java a PhD level language, while the eco-system is trying to steer a battle cruise to learn new tricks that should have been part of Java 1.0.
Removing complexity from the language just moves it onto the developer and end-user code, it doesn't eliminate it. Go's mediocrity is a ticking timebomb.
Git's implementation is stronger and more useful for larger projects than Mercurial's, even if the user interface is less logical.
It's not that the software world is driven by hype but that the software world is driven by what the giants do. Often, what Google does isn't right for a small project.