Syntax and semantics are never orthogonal and you always need syntax so it must be considered from the start. Any reasonable syntax will quickly become much more pleasant to generate an ast or ir than, say, manually building these objects in the host language of the compiler which is what the semantics first crowd seem to propose.

It also is only the case that most of the work is the backend for some compilers, though of course all of this depends on how backend is defined. Is backend just codegen or is it all of the analysis between parsing and codegen? If you target a high level language, which is very appropriate for one's first few compilers, the backend can be quite simple. At the simplest, no ast is even necessary and the compiler can just mechanically translate one syntax into another in a single pass.

> The recommended advice is to start with semantics first. Syntax will change, there is not much point fixing it down too early.

It's actually the reverse, in my opinion. Semantics can change much more easily than syntax. You can see this in that small changes in syntax can cause massive changes in a recursive-descent parser while the semantics can change from pass-by-reference to pass-by-value and make it barely budge.

There is a reason practically every modern language has adopted syntax sigils like (choosing Zig):

    pub fn is_list(arg: arg_t, len: ui_t) bool {

This allows the identification of the various parts and types without referencing or compiling the universe. That's super important and something that must be baked in the syntax at the start or there is nothing you can do about it.