> Dark is intending to be "batteries included" and relieve developers of the need for a huge ecosystem with multiple libraries for everything. If it's actually

> Dark is intending to be "batteries included" and relieve developers of the need for a huge ecosystem with multiple libraries for everything. If it's actually going to be 'batteries included' in any meaningful way, then it will have to piggy-back off of one or more of these 'huge ecosystems', which invariably leads to the ability to integrate external pieces of these systems when needed. Which just makes it a wrapper around existing 'huge ecosystems'. There's a reason why established languages such as Java, C#, C++, JavaScript, etc. have multiple libraries for the same problem - these libraries have different features, tradeoffs, designs etc. Same reason why existing projects get forked and new projects get started. Same reason these 'huge ecosystems' have frameworks, design patterns, idioms, best practices, etc. Competition, innovation, new designs, new ways of solving existing problems is a good thing. I don't see dark as anything more than a very new framework, with lofty promises and zero evidence towards the idea that it will be better than existing systems in any way. > 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. A tiny FOSS language at least has a chance of getting some maintenance/bug fixes from the community. What happens when your proprietary language dies for lack of traction? Also, nothing prevents a person working full-time on a FOSS language.