>but a decent language with corporate support, a good standard library and good tools....is...well...pretty darn "amazing" in my book.

This also describes Java in 1997. I wouldn't call that an amazing language either.

>Other "exciting" languages that play in the same field as Go are perhaps Rust and D, but neither of those have the same corporate/community support, tools, eco-system, etc.

I don't know enough about D to speak about it, but at least Rust has a good type system (based on hindley-milner), support for generic programming, pattern matching, extensibility, etc. I'd personally call Rust "well-designed".