> It's better to get something to work first and then optimize performance later than the other way around. That’s what they did by using LLVM instead of makin

> It's better to get something to work first and then optimize performance later than the other way around. That’s what they did by using LLVM instead of making their own compiler backend. The compiler could have apparently (according to what have been said) been faster, earlier, if they didn’t have to go through LLVM. But yeah, you’re right about their priorities: minimizing runtime has always been a high priority while designing the language, while designing for fast compiles has not. At least according to my view from the peanut gallery I don’t know anything about compilers, but it would have been interesting to see if a language like Rust would look different today in this regard if they focused on incremental compilation (instead of batch) from day one.