I disagree. I use the compiler's dissatisfaction with my code to guide the refactor I need when my model is wrong. In a language with a good type system, the typechecker is like a built in set of unit tests.
I think the more general point he makes is about design, its hard to have the design nailed down from the beginning for most projects, why not hack something up quickly and in the process discover lots stuff that you probably wouldn't had thought of in the beginning. But if you know a language that lets you iterate very fast and you are highly productive in it, that it also has great library support so don't you don't have to reinvent the wheel all the time and lets you refactor just as easily then sure ;)
My point is that I can hack things up quickly and in the process discover lots of stuff without needing to be able to run the hacked together code, because typechecking it is enough to guide me in how to reshape it.
In dynamic languages you can also hack things together and run them (manually or through tests) to see how your hacks aren't fitting together right. I'm not saying untyped languages are bad, I'm saying that they are not inherently better for prototyping in my experience.
Libraries are important, but totally outside the scope of this conversation and I think its rude of you to raise an implication about them here. Everyone knows Rust is a young language and has the libraries that come with that.
