That's not a fair characterization. While it was not elegantly posed, the argument was in essence "these languages optimize for ease of adoption instead of power". It's objectively true that go and javascript deliberately aren't able to do a bunch of things that a language like haskell can. Different choices were made. That doesn't mean that go and javascript have no place in programming, since we definitely need languages that are easy to get started in to on-board new people. However, the question is whether it's right that those languages then end up being people's choice for the rest of their professional career. A programmer is more likely to grow when using tools that enable growth.

On the other hand, while I haven't written haskell, I have written a bunch of scala and C++, and both suffer from an excess of syntax. In both cases skilled practitioners learn to ignore some of the language features, to ensure their own sanity when maintaining those code bases later on. There is something to be said about having a language that doesn't allow wizardry when viewed through the lens of maintainability. From what I understand that is go's design.