You seem to have gotten a bit emotional about this, so I don't think this'll go anywhere.
Claiming the poster is being emotional is... poor form, to put it mildly
Putting scare quotes around what I said, calling what I said "ridiculous", and seems to have taken critique of the Go language personally by saying that the Go language designers better than most language designers.
So this is why I found the reply neither calm nor courteous. As for reasoned, I don't see any reasoning it it, just conclusions.
I don't even see any sign of a refutation of my point, which isn't so much about if Go is good or not, but about the needless reinventing and ignoring other work, and as a result running into problems that would have been predictable, had they been taken into account.
To me it summarizes as "they're smart, you're dumb".
If this is the type of replies this person would write, then that's not productive.
I've seen Pike have conversations about language design with SPJ, Hejlsberg, Lattner, Stroustrup, Odersky and other highly respective PL designers and they would never make such a shallow and trite comment.
The idea that they did so out of ignorance is ridiculous, given the background of the Go design team. They made considered decisions about what to include in Go.
A fixed-gear bicycle is not "ignoring" decades of bicycle design theory.
Creating a programming language is an engineering task not a theoretical task. Which means there are major trade-offs to be made. And they chose their trade-offs. The wild success of Go should at least make you consider whether or not they're better at making these trade-offs than you, and most language designers, are.
Maybe they were wrong about some choices, which is why Go is still evolving, but they were self-evidently mostly correct.