> No they weren't

Indeed they were. Your quote even says so — seeking out to solve the problems C++ was thought to have, which is that it didn't have the ergonomics of languages like Python, as explained in the original public Go announcement. To "feel like a dynamically-typed language" was a primary motivation. That was clearly told.

You can certainly hold the view that a better C++ and a fast Python are one and the same, but I suspect the HN crowd will vehemently disagree with you. Conflating the two would not serve to communicate much here.

> were very surprised by the adoption from Python folks.

Quite naturally. Python users were already using Python. One would be inclined to think that they didn't need another Python. Except it turns out they did, because it was actually they who needed a faster Python.