It's funny that Go keeps getting mentioned when people talk about new C-like languages because as you point out, it's not actually very C-like. In fact, the only thing that I'd say was truly C-like is the ability to create standalone executables. One of the dead giveaways is that most interest in Go seems to be coming from the Python community.
A better comparison would be Rust and Clay. Rust seems to emphasize correctness in the type system, Clay on making existing C++ style generics less cumbersome to use (a frankly laudable intention). On the other hand, I think it would be easier to give Rust the good things in Clay than the other way around.
Sure, I agree completely. But they're both systems languages. I write systems software, and Go already has barely any traction in the broader software community (outside of Hacker News...), so I have to choose what's easy to learn and has a reasonable level of support.
Languages always succeed based on support (documentation, community, tooling)--not features.
I brought Go up here because it stands the best chance of inheriting the role that C and C++ occupied for systems software, and which Python is also taking over. That's why it was created, so developers could have a statically-typed systems language that wasn't C or C++ or Python or Java, since all of those were unsuitable in various tasks for one reason or another.
I'm sure you didn't mean to be unnecessarily condescending with your reply.
I did not in fact read all 63 pages (!) of the language reference, but as for the predicated type declarations (found here, for the curious), I agree, they are very cool.
Let me clarify: I'm not saying the language does not have good parts to it. I'm not even saying that there's no room for a new systems language. I'm just saying for my use case, I can't justify using it and I'll stick with Go for now.