Nah, the only reason is lack of tooling.

Instead of Go, you could have reached out to complex languages with fast compilation times like D, OCaml, Haskell, Ada, Delphi, C++.

All of them have alternative implementations with fast compilation times.

D, use dmd for fast development workflows, gdc or ldc for the ultimate performance at the expense of compilation times.

OCaml, use the REPL or bytecode interpreter for fast development times, the full blow compiler for ultimate performance.

Haskell, use the REPL, GHCi for the fast development cycles, GHC for the release build.

Ada and Delphi, have had fast implementations since forever, although Ada/SPARK is indeed somehow expensive.

C++, yes it isn't a mistake. Use Live++, VS hot reload, coupled with binary libraries, or a REPL like CINT (nee ROOT), binary libraries for dependencies, incremental compilation and incremental linking for the development workflow.

The problem with Rust isn't the language itself, rather the ecosystem currently lacking such kind of options being available.