4 ms·

Hum, as far as I know, developing a programming language means burning cash. Except if you can find a way to use it as an advantage to develop something else wa

Hum, as far as I know, developing a programming language means burning cash. Except if you can find a way to use it as an advantage to develop something else way more efficiently which, then, generates a revenue (which is really, really hard), you're in for a really fun round of "'

nddrylliog 16y ago
"losing money while nobody cares" tl;dr it's really hard to come up with a technology that justifies the investment in that domai
- MrMan 16y ago
  nobody cared about Clojure? Scala? Go? D? the macros that PG used to build his storefront generator? I am asking about a general framework for valuing the creation of a new language and it's attendant components, considered alone. The network effects required to popularize a language are not truly, in my opinion, to be considered "costs" because such a network peforce is a considerable asset. In other words, if you own a network that can make a new language valuable, then that in iteself is one valuable metric for the worth of your network.
  - evangineer 16y ago
    Rich Hickey is probably getting more consulting and training gigs as Clojure gains traction. Martin Odersky is still a professor at EPFL but has founded Scala Solutions which does training, consulting, and will eventually provide Scala development tools besides the existing Eclipse support. The potential use value of Go as a replacement for Java and/or C++ for in-house production systems is more than sufficient to justify Google's investment in the related R&D. Walter Bright already had a pretty formidable track record before developing D so it might have kicked up his consulting practice a notch. The more significant financial impact for him from developing D seems to be more demand for seminars on compiler construction which he is unquestionably a master of.
    - nddrylliog 16y ago
      Yes, a thousand yeses. For having tried that (and relatively succeeded), I know the benefits of having personally developed a language and made it (relatively) popular. It's an amazing thing to have on your CV, a great experience if you've got lots of free time and/or are very productive, but I really wouldn't base a business on it. It might be affordable as an investment if it's a very small part of an existing company based on another business, but that's about it.
- evangineer 16y ago
  We saw something similar to this with AppJet, which was a Javascript Platform as a Service. They used the AppJet technology to build EtherPad which got so much traction, they pivoted and focused on EtherPad as their revenue generator. They later got acquired by Google, so that the AppJet/Etherpad team could work on Wave.

nddrylliog 16y ago

"losing money while nobody cares" tl;dr it's really hard to come up with a technology that justifies the investment in that domai

MrMan 16y ago
nobody cared about Clojure? Scala? Go? D? the macros that PG used to build his storefront generator? I am asking about a general framework for valuing the creation of a new language and it's attendant components, considered alone. The network effects required to popularize a language are not truly, in my opinion, to be considered "costs" because such a network peforce is a considerable asset. In other words, if you own a network that can make a new language valuable, then that in iteself is one valuable metric for the worth of your network.
- evangineer 16y ago
  Rich Hickey is probably getting more consulting and training gigs as Clojure gains traction. Martin Odersky is still a professor at EPFL but has founded Scala Solutions which does training, consulting, and will eventually provide Scala development tools besides the existing Eclipse support. The potential use value of Go as a replacement for Java and/or C++ for in-house production systems is more than sufficient to justify Google's investment in the related R&D. Walter Bright already had a pretty formidable track record before developing D so it might have kicked up his consulting practice a notch. The more significant financial impact for him from developing D seems to be more demand for seminars on compiler construction which he is unquestionably a master of.
  - nddrylliog 16y ago
    Yes, a thousand yeses. For having tried that (and relatively succeeded), I know the benefits of having personally developed a language and made it (relatively) popular. It's an amazing thing to have on your CV, a great experience if you've got lots of free time and/or are very productive, but I really wouldn't base a business on it. It might be affordable as an investment if it's a very small part of an existing company based on another business, but that's about it.
evangineer 16y ago
We saw something similar to this with AppJet, which was a Javascript Platform as a Service. They used the AppJet technology to build EtherPad which got so much traction, they pivoted and focused on EtherPad as their revenue generator. They later got acquired by Google, so that the AppJet/Etherpad team could work on Wave.