One point the article does not mention is the documentation. I think Go's documentation is excellent, it does not overwhelm the reader with its volume, but mostly anything one might want to know about the syntax and semantic can be answered by carefully reading through the documentation that comes along with the development tools.
Also, there are some pretty neat static analysis tools for Go out there, and since they are mostly developed in a development-environment-agnostic way, they tend to be usable from a relatively wide range of editors and IDEs. But even just using go vet and golint regularly goes a long way to rooting out all those tiny but tedious bugs and ensure a degree of consistency in naming conventions.
I still do not see why somebody in their right mind would willingly prefer camelCase over using_underscores, but the fact that my code is laid out in the same way as that of third-party libraries means it is surprisingly easy to dive into somebody else's code and make sense of it. The fact the Go community tends to favor simplicity over brevity can get annoying at times, but when you have to read somebody else's code to figure out if it's buggy or you're using it wrong, it is priceless.
There a many things Go could do better (or at all), but if there is no way to implement some feature without sacrificing simplicity, I prefer simplicity. I you want C++, as the saying goes, we know where to find it. ;-)
(I'll admit though that the C# designers have done an impressive job at adding lots of features without the language collapsing under its own weight. So it's not like it's impossible.)