Ted meant that Go has a decent story for this particular use case, not that everybody uses it because of that. I think that you meant to say "distant from my reality" instead of "distant from reality", because otherwise your statement does exactly what you strawman Ted's into saying.
> not that everybody uses it because of that
He says "succeeded", isn't that the same thing you are arguing against?
Not quite, I am against the notion that everybody uses Go for one reason. But I also think that the reason you gave would not be true if goroutines and channels, or some other easy to use concurrency abstraction, were not a primary fixture of the language.
Hm, I think this is a bit distant from reality. People who use Perl/Python/Ruby eventually experience problems with performance and memory usage and start looking for alternatives. And since Go is a small language, familiar to everyone and offers an easy way to replace existing services (static binaries) - people choose it.