> because the open source ecosystem wasn't broad enough to cover their needs
I don't really think this matters. Dark is intending to be "batteries included" and relieve developers of the need for a huge ecosystem with multiple libraries for everything.
> And yet they're asking their customers to make the same bet on their proprietary language and platform.
I always use very popular open-source stacks.
That said, if given the choice between a tiny FOSS language and a tiny proprietary one (that might be profitable), I'll always choose the latter.
Small languages are extremely vulnerable to extinction regardless of who maintains them. But if at least one person's full-time job is to maintain a language, I feel much more confident than if 1-5 people are maintaining it part-time.
I don't really think this matters. Dark is intending to be "batteries included" and relieve developers of the need for a huge ecosystem with multiple libraries for everything.
> And yet they're asking their customers to make the same bet on their proprietary language and platform.
I always use very popular open-source stacks.
That said, if given the choice between a tiny FOSS language and a tiny proprietary one (that might be profitable), I'll always choose the latter.
Small languages are extremely vulnerable to extinction regardless of who maintains them. But if at least one person's full-time job is to maintain a language, I feel much more confident than if 1-5 people are maintaining it part-time.