I'd say you weren't exactly engaging in good faith, either. It's pretty clear that their point could be summarised as something like: Go's designers tried or in

I'd say you weren't exactly engaging in good faith, either. It's pretty clear that their point could be summarised as something like: Go's designers tried or intended to design the language for programming in the large, but they failed (perhaps partially), so therefore Go isn't (after the fact) designed for programming in the large. You can argue about whether they really failed or not, but your pedantic take on it wasn't helpful for a discussion.