No that's the problem. I said I did not write this to bash the interviewer and I really meant it. The idea here is that to achieve something quite useful like

No that's the problem. I said I did not write this to bash the interviewer and I really meant it. The idea here is that to achieve something quite useful like a distro ("made an OS") for the Raspberry Pi, the important part is to figure out a problem that needs solving and a tool to solve it. A person who made something cool might be actually quite dumb, and that's alright. A good answer is something that foremost solves a problem. A bad answer is a fancy technology that doesn't do it better. Here I sucked at my Go solution and I deserved to fail. But here it's just a lame fail because my initial solution worked and the rule changed to accommodate the fact that it was not the technology he expected.