Readability debates are usually boring because it’s so subjective, but in this case it’s just your (admitted!) unfamiliarity. Lots and lots of people would disagree with you that Go is unreadable. Go isn’t pretty or cute, but one of its strengths is its relative clarity. All languages require some familiarity to read properly.
> but in this case it’s just your (admitted!) unfamiliarity
That's exactly the problem. Golang has syntax different from other imperative languages not because its syntax brings something new to the table, but just for the sake of being different. In other words, it's an entry barrier that provides nothing in return.
To illustrate my point, imagine someone coming up with a new measurement unit "my_unit" equal to 0,73926745 cm. The first question is "why" because it solves zero problems for which the metric system would be impractical, while adding new cognitive load for people trying to use it. And then there's the counterargument "you're just not familiar with it!" which is a fair point because objectively, you can't say that either centimeter or "my_unit" is better. It's just that it's unnecessary cost of switching from already applied standard that works equally well.
> but one of its strengths is its relative clarity
How you define "relative clarity" in a way that isn't "so subjective" and not immediately due to familiarity?
To me it seems like you're saying it's all subjective except for Go's relative readability, but I'm not sure what's making said relative readability any less subjective.
It is all subjective, but if a large number of subjects have a consistent opinion then that is something to take seriously rather than dismiss with absurd hyperbole (“most garbage”, “mostly unreadable”).
