The article is trying to focus on "Simplicity"(in everything?) with Go being the exemplar according to the author. However it confuses two major issues; Simplicity in the Language used for expression vs. Simplicity in the Solution of a Problem. They are two very different things; and the quote you list (by Tony Hoare) actually refers to the latter.
Simplicity in the solution of a problem is not to be argued against. This was the main thrust of Wirth's work (see also the book The School of Niklaus Wirth: The Art of Simplicity). But he presupposed that this is only possible by using a "Simple" language. This is what is debatable. I think with the experience that the community has gained now (in terms of volume of software written) we are realizing the need for "Complex" languages/libraries/frameworks.
Simplicity in the solution of a problem is not to be argued against. This was the main thrust of Wirth's work (see also the book The School of Niklaus Wirth: The Art of Simplicity). But he presupposed that this is only possible by using a "Simple" language. This is what is debatable. I think with the experience that the community has gained now (in terms of volume of software written) we are realizing the need for "Complex" languages/libraries/frameworks.