There was some confusion about it, but in general people backpedalled once they realized the language is not a systems langauge and so they redefined what  &quot;systems&quot; means.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2009&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;google-go-language&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2009&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;google-go-language&#x2F;</a><p>---
Go attempts to combine the development speed of working in a dynamic language like Python with the performance and safety of a compiled language like C or C++ [...] the compiled code runs close to the speed of C.<p>We’re hoping Go turns out to be a great language for systems programming
---<p>They pit it against C and C++ and if Rob Pike doesn&#x27;t know what &quot;systems&quot; means then well, nobody does ;-)<p>It doesn&#x27;t matter really, Go is a popular, productive, useful language. There is nothing wrong if it &quot;pivoted&quot; or updated its description a few times in the past. It doesn&#x27;t make bad or deficient, but there is also no point in denying it or trying to rewrite history.