[pjmlp]

I bet CLU generics as designed in 1971 hardware would compile quite fast on modern hardware.

[foldr]

Maybe. I don't know. It is pretty difficult to find examples of languages with generics that have compile times comparable to those of Go.

[pjmlp]

Easy, CLU (1971), ML (1973), Ada (1983), .NET (2003), Delphi (2007), D (2007).

Not every implementation needs to be turing complete C++ style.

[foldr]

I don't know anything about CLU. ML compilers are a mixed bag. OCaml (which is a different dialect, of course), has an acceptably fast compiler, but it's not near-instant like Go. Ada compilers are famous for being slow, at least historically. C# is, again, acceptably quick to compile, but not as quick as Go. I don't know about D. I've heard good things about Delphi's compile times, but no-one uses it now.

[pjmlp]

In that comparison you forgot the part of turning off optimizations so that the code quality is similar to what Go standard compiler spends time doing.

The compilation speed drop is easily seen when using gccgo instead.

A side note for Delphi, it is still relatively used in European enterprises, with an yearly conference in Germany.

And I could have mentioned other languages like Eiffel, with their mixed JIT for development and AOT via C compilers for final delivery.

[foldr]

The Go compiler is still faster than most of the competition, even when you compare with optimizations turned off.

[pjmlp]

So you hardly know the languages, never used some of them, but Go compiler is faster.

Very scientific.