Every language has its die-hard cult of a few who claim it should be the one and true only language in the world (and the claim is always wrong). But Go is the only case I know where I see people actually respond to that. As if it were a real question.

I think it's a combination of many aspects:

- Go is quite opinionated as a technical object, thus polarizing; which attracts more contentious debate(-rs) than average.

- In truth, Go was meant to be niche, and wants to remain so; it never actually tried to become as big as it is. The whole "take over the world" mantra is pretty much alien to its core design, its primary intent and, most likely, ultimate destination.

- Go has a few powerful traits (great at concurrency, great at scaling simple services, etc.), but people want to generalize, and indeed Go's not far from being quite more general (if it had generics, etc). There's no consensus as it's arguably hard to bring in more expressiveness while preserving the intricate mechanics of its elementary objects (each must respond to all others properly). This "in flux" situation has passionate advocates on all contentious sides.

- Google's weight behind Go makes it feared by some, but it's not like Google is trying to make Go "the one and only", even internally (that proposition doesn't make any engineering sense).

- Some hype, by 'influencers' in the space who fell in love with it, made Go a shining beacon of something— this elegance in simple abstractions (when it fits one's problem space well), its manageability by teams, ease of programming, etc. There's something to be said for these qualities, but again it was just wrong to generalize... it's just what people do. We move in cycle of hypes, trend-waves, it's best to keep a Bayesian mind through all of it.

So much ado about a niche.

[1]: wth with that even being a thing, it's a programming language for Turing's sake. Let us recall that languages are neither good nor bad, but shit-posting makes it so. Yes, even Rust: neither holy nor evil, I assure you.