Simplicity for simplicity's sake isn't a virtue. I often feel that Go chooses that path ideologically, whereas real world use cases should have more innings (yes, it's the generics and shitty type system thing again, I'm not expecting us to agree, I'm just pointing it out).
To that end, Go doesn't work for me. I use a fairly straightforward stack atop the JVM because I can hold the whole thing in my head (nothing in either Dropwizard or Play is deep magic) and have the expressiveness in Scala to be clear with my code.
And the issue isn't so much whether or not a programmer can hold the "entire system" in their head so much as, if they don't need to, they can be doing a whole lot more. This is, after all, what computers are good for.
I can do a lot more when I can trust my system to evaluate my code and throw compile-time errors. I can't trust Go's you're system in the same way I can Scala.
I noted the simplicity of the stack mostly to forestall the usual tired complaints about complexity, nothing more. What you call "academic", I call "building at scale."
To that end, Go doesn't work for me. I use a fairly straightforward stack atop the JVM because I can hold the whole thing in my head (nothing in either Dropwizard or Play is deep magic) and have the expressiveness in Scala to be clear with my code.