That's definitely an advantage. People used to rag on me because I used a BASIC dialect for most of my development. One of main reasons: tens to hundreds of thousands of lines of code compiled and linked effortlessly. I later moved to LISP with its incremental, function-by-function compilation to get pause times down to tenth of a second.
Either way, the elimination of long compile cycles and other interruptions maintains the mental flow of the programmer. This results in a significant productivity boost. Also, the job feels better as interruptions and backtracking can be stressful.
One of my colleagues (a Paris Politechnique guy, so very much a mathematical purist) was recently going on and on about the beauty of lisp, and how much better it was than C (on a formal level, of course).
I think Go sits on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's a hacker's language, not a mathematician's language. It's ugly and very useful.
" It's a hacker's language, not a mathematician's language. It's ugly and very useful."
Lmao. That's exactly what hackers said about LISP. That people can often emulate a language or even paradigm (eg OOP) within the original language using macro's shows it. Strange enough, LISP can modify itself to do whatever modern languages are doing with similar productivity. It doesn't work vice versa. On top of it, the LISP compilers make pretty fast code for such a flexible language and past engineers even made dedicated hardware for it.
That's why, although far from perfect, LISP is still the ultimate, hackers' language.
Oh, yeah, I'd never put Go into any mathematical category. It's more about practical purity and simplicity like the languages that inspired it. My gripe with go was that it was a clean-slate, modern language that didn't adopt any of the awesome things PL community invented since the 80's.
Julia seems to be the best example of a clean-slate language that tries to combine all the best features and attributes of various languages with good effect. Also beats Go and many other languages on various benchmarks despite dynamic typing. I'd like to see some application-server or RDBMS type of benchmarks, though, as Julia was designed for the mathematical stuff. Might not perform as well but should still be good.
Either way, the elimination of long compile cycles and other interruptions maintains the mental flow of the programmer. This results in a significant productivity boost. Also, the job feels better as interruptions and backtracking can be stressful.