It doesn't have the performance or the features of something like Chi/Gin/Echo, so while it will improve the lives of people who prefer to stick to the stdlib, it probably won't convince many others.
I think so. Sure people will try to value add on top, but I know at least I can just pick the stdlib and not need to go check various package repos to see if they have maintainers and open security issues. I bet a lot of developers will feel the same way.
Not likely. Routers are so easy to write that the "different abstractions" have already been written, and are unaffected by this change to the standard library, because they don't build on the standard library, they plug in next to it.
The primary utility of Go's net/http is that it is a "minimal framework" that provides a fairly common plug-level compatibility between various bits and pieces. The particular bits that it happens to provide by "default" are not really that consequential by comparison. I was actually surprised anyone touched the standard mux at all at this late date because there's so many other options already, and most of them just plug in with no fuss at all. All a router is is a handler that examines the request and then calls another handler as a result.
I agree on paper, but story shown how the combination of "I like it, but I want it just a little bit different" combined with something somehow new is a recipe for new weekend projects
No because we don't have named routes and the ability to reverse build the URL like in the Django router. So, at lest this functionality will be again built on top with different opinions on the best way to do it.
