Yes, programming languages are designed for a purpose and importantly for a concrete system. Erlang is the way it is because it was designed for Ericsson's phone network. C is the way it is because it was designed for the PDP-11. Logo is the way it is because is was designed for young children. Go is they way it is because it was designed by Google for Googlers.

You can't design an abstractly "perfect" programming language without any context. Which is why the author I think focuses on "perfectable", as in the language can be made perfect for your purpose but it's not going to be one size fits all.

One thing I like about TypeScript is that there's tooling for "quickly strip out the types and give me something I can run; I don't care if it's correct". You can run the (slower) type checker concurrently with that (or whenever it's convenient to do so), but type-checking doesn't necessarily block you from being able to play with runtime stuff.

I understand that this workflow can't be realized in languages whose runtime semantics are derived from type-level stuff, and while that can be quite convenient I'm personally willing to give it up to unlock the aforementioned workflow.

"Isn't the compile speed of Go so good because it's type system is much simpler?"

That, and forgoing fancy compile-time optimization steps which can get arbitrarily expensive. You can recover some of this with profile-guided optimization, but only some and my best guess based on the numbers is that it's not much compared to a more full (but much more expensive) suite of compile-time optimizations.

oh yeah absolutely. The moment you start blowing up Go with features (for example) the speed decreases dramatically.