It's faster because it does less, and it doesn't do it as well. You can always make LLVM faster by reducing the kinds and number of passes performed for debug builds, for instance, "cargo check".
Further, developers have much better machines than customers, and taking more time to release something smaller is almost always better.
> ...not depending on C++
I hate C++, but I could care less that LLVM was written in it. I don't refuse to use MySQL because it happens to be written in C++. The Go compiler could still be written in Go, and targeted at LLVM IR code, just as the Rust compiler is written in Rust.
> ...and we don't need a compiler monoculture
And we don't have one either way. There's GCC and LLVM. A boutique one-off compiler is in no danger of toppling the GCC/LLVM status quo.
It's faster because it does less, and it doesn't do it as well. You can always make LLVM faster by reducing the kinds and number of passes performed for debug builds, for instance, "cargo check".
Further, developers have much better machines than customers, and taking more time to release something smaller is almost always better.
> ...not depending on C++
I hate C++, but I could care less that LLVM was written in it. I don't refuse to use MySQL because it happens to be written in C++. The Go compiler could still be written in Go, and targeted at LLVM IR code, just as the Rust compiler is written in Rust.
> ...and we don't need a compiler monoculture
And we don't have one either way. There's GCC and LLVM. A boutique one-off compiler is in no danger of toppling the GCC/LLVM status quo.