Not to disagree with you, but even C++ is going through great efforts to improve compile-times through C++20 modules and C++23 standard library modules (import std;). Although no compiler fully supports both, you can get an idea of how they can improve compile-times with clang and libc++

    $ # No modules
    $ clang++ -std=c++23 -stdlib=libc++ a.cpp # 4.8s
    $ # With modules
    $ clang++ -std=c++23 -stdlib=libc++ --precompile -o std.pcm /path/to/libc++/v1/std.cppm # 4.6s but this is done once
    $ clang++ -std=c++23 -stdlib=libc++ -fmodule-file=std=std.pcm b.cpp # 1.5s 

a.cpp and b.cpp are equivalent but b.cpp does `import std;` and a.cpp imports every standard C++ header file (same thing as import std, you can find them in libc++' std.cppm).

Notice that this is an extreme example since we're importing the whole standard library and is actually discouraged [^1]. Instead you can get through the day with just these flags: `-stdlib=libc++ -fimplicit-modules -fimplicit-module-maps` and of course -std=c++20 or later, no extra files/commands required! but you are only restricted to doing import <vector>; and such, no import std.

[^1]: non-standard headers like `bits/stdc++.h` which does the same thing (#including the whole standard library) is what is actually discouraged because a. non-standard and b. compile-times, but I can see `import std` solving these two and being encouraged once it's widely available!

tinycc is still fast. all the current single-pass compilers are fast.

Am I wrong about this?

Their algorithms were simpler.

Their output was simpler.

As their complexity grew, proportionately did program performance.

Not to mention adding language convenience features (generics, closures).