The article was thorough, and even included a Twitter poll asking respondents if they still used Underscore or Lodash; nearly three quarters of respondents answered that they used one of the two libraries frequently.
And it’s in that same spirit that I now see Lodash and underscore.*
By contrast, Go does not entirely meets its ideal of standardization in practice; several popular frameworks have emerged. It appears that many people need functionality that the standard library does not provide, and a firm consensus has yet to emerge. While Gin seems to be the most popular, it does not enjoy anything like the dominance of Node or Express.
It appears that Go's approach of actively promoting simplicity has partially produced a contrary result. Perhaps when a language is sufficiently widespread, there will always emerge a critical mass of users who want more than what comes in the box. Perhaps it also inevitable — or very common — that these users will want different, or want the same things implemented differently. And perhaps it's necessary, or simply very helpful, to allow these differences to play out, and let ideas compete, in order for a winner to emerge.
This is all speculation, of course, and I still love Go. Despite what I've written here, I think the language meets its core philosophy of simplifying the developer experience. I particularly appreciate how well thought out the language is, and how it's made to really fit its intended use cases. Still, I think these are are interesting issues to think about, and it's important to qualify or challenge your own points of view.